From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 00:37:46 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:37:46 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371C45@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> References: <1146423434.1444691238519116668.JavaMail.root@sz0094a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371C45@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: <49d2b756.1cbc720a.571b.3e61@mx.google.com> Hi Craig, And now iTunes has at least some competition from Amazon's digital music store. All the downloads from amazon are DRM-free, so people could certainly burn as many copies of a CD as they want. But this hasn't been a huge problem for people so far. Apparently, the ability to pay a reasonable price an dbuy only the songs you want (though you do get a discount if you buy an entire album) encourages a lot of people to handle music downloads in a legal manner. I wonder if we'll eventually see something like this for books. Angie -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of craig.borne at dot.gov Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:10 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought Hi Craig, One major difference I see is that a library book is never owned by the patron. It is merely borrowed. On the other hand, the patron who purchases the electronic book on the Kindle is purchasing the same privileages as one who purchases a hard copy of the book, yet that purchase, though promising ownership of the book, is severely limited as to the portability of that book, which is not the case with a hard bound book. My impression of the article's focus was that we are indeed heading into a great technological age, but we also seem to be giving up certain privileages along the way. ITunes is another great example: I can purchase an entire albumn of music, but I am limited in how I want to listen to that music. I am also limited in allowing my neighbor to borrow the albumn to decide whether or not he is interested in purchasing it for himself (I am not suggesting any copying of the albumn in this example). Craig Craig Borne NHTSA/DOT (202) 493-0627 craig.borne at dot.gov -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Craig R. Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:05 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought Dave, Heady thoughts indeed. But isn't Ms. Walsh a little too alarmist? How, after all, is a digitalized book on a Kindle Reader significantly different in this respect from a borrowed library book? Thanks in any event for posting the essay. Regards. Craig ----- David B Andrews wrote: > With all the discussion about the Kindle, and what it permits, and > doesn't permit, I thought this might be of interest to some. > > David Andrews > > > Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought > > By Emily Walshe > The Christian Science Monitor > from the March 18, 2009 edition > <http://www.csmonitor.com/200 9/0318/p09s01-coop.html> > > Brookville, N.Y. - All you really need to know about > the dangers of digital commodification you learned in > kindergarten. > > Think back. Remember swapping your baloney sandwich for > Jell-o pudding? Now, imagine handing over your sandwich > and getting just a spoon. > > That's one trade you'd never make again. > > Yet that's just what millions of Americans are doing > every day when they read "books" on Kindle, Amazon's e- > reading device. In our rush to adopt new technologies, > we have too readily surrendered ownership in favor of > its twisted sister, access. > > Web 2.0 and its culture of collaboration supposedly > unleashed a sharing society. But we can share only what > we own. And as more and more content gets digitized, > commercialized, and monopolized, our cultural integrity > is threatened. The free and balanced flow of > information that gives shape to democratic society is > jeopardized. > > For now, though, Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. > Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want > it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds > away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display > ... looks and reads like real paper." > > But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or > share your books - because you don't own them. You can > download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult > to read anything that is not routed through Amazon > first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access > to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a > library, because there is no public investment. It's > like taking an interest-only mortgage out on > intellectual property. > > If our flailing economy is to teach us anything, it > might be that an on-demand world of universal access > (with words like lease, licensure, and liquidity) gets > us into trouble. Amazon and other e-media aggregators > know that digital text is the irrational exuberance of > the day, and so are seizing the opportunity to codify, > commodify, and control access for tomorrow. But access > doesn't "look and read" like printed paper at all - > just ask any forlorn investor. Access is useless > currency. > > Why is this important? Because Kindle is the kind of > technology that challenges media freedom and restricts > media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William > Leach calls "the landscape of the temporary": a hyper > mobile and rootless society that prefers access to > ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers > of selective censorship and control. > > Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to > lock in its library, raises critical questions about > the nature of property and identity in digital culture. > Culture plays a large role - in some ways, larger than > government - in shaping who we are as individuals in a > society. The First Amendment protects our right to > participate in the production of that culture. The > widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly > every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, > to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big- > time threat to free expression and assembly. > > When Facebook, for example, proposed revisions to its > terms of service last month - claiming ownership of > user profiles and personal data - the successful > backlash it spawned caused complex (even existential) > ideas about property, identity, and capitulation to > bubble up: Is my Facebook profile the essence of who I > am? If so, who owns me? > > The hallmark of a constitutionally governed society, > after all, is the acknowledgment that we are the > authors of our own experience. In an Internet age, this > is manifest not only in published works, but also an > ever-evolving host of user-generated content (Twitter, > Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). If service providers > lay claim to digital content now, how will it all end? > > Print may be dying, but the idea of print would be the > more critical demise: the idea that there needs to be a > record - an artifact of permanence, residence, and > posterity - that is independent of some well-appointed > thingamajig in order to be seen, touched, understood, > or wholly possessed. > > "You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture," > Ray Bradbury once said. "Just get people to stop > reading them." > > Access equals control. In this case, it is control over > what is read and what is not; what is referenced and > what is overlooked; what is retained and what is > deleted; what is and what seems to be. > > To kindle, we must remember, is to set fire to. The > combustible power of this device (and others like it) > lies in their quiet but constant claim to intangible, > algorithmic capital. What the Kindle should be igniting > is serious debate on the fundamental, inalienable right > to property in a digital age - and clarifying what's > yours, mine, and ours. > > It should strike a match against the winner-take-all > casino economies that this kind of technology > engenders; revitalize American libraries and other > social institutions in their quest to preserve the > doctrines of fair use and first sale (which allow for > free and lawful sharing); and finally, spark Americans > to consider the extent to which they are handing over > their baloney sandwich for a plastic spoon. > > Like a lot of people, I'm a sucker for a good book. But > not at the expense of freedom, or foreclosure of > thought. > > > Emily Walshe is a librarian and professor at Long > Island University in New York. > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mar.cra%40comc ast.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 dot.gov _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma il.com From dandrews at visi.com Wed Apr 1 01:01:45 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:01:45 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Enhances and Expands Newspaper Service for the Blind Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind (410) 659-9314, extension 2330 (410) 262-1281 (Cell) cdanielsen at nfb.org National Federation of the Blind Enhances and Expands Newspaper Service for the Blind NFB-NEWSLINE® Online Offers Blind Individuals More Options for Accessing the News Baltimore, Maryland (March 31, 2009): NFB-NEWSLINE®, the largest electronic newspaper service in the world for blind and print-disabled Americans, is pleased to announce the launch of NFB-NEWSLINE® Online (www.nfbnewslineonline.org). Through NFB-NEWSLINE® Online’s groundbreaking features, subscribers can enjoy both an enhanced experience in reading the news and dramatically increased flexibility in how they choose to access their favorite publication’s content. Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The NFB-NEWSLINE® service was created so that blind people could benefit from independent access to information on world news and hometown events in the same way that our sighted colleagues can. The new features offered by NFB-NEWSLINE® Online are an extension of this service’s ability to allow independent and flexible access to news content by the blind. I am very proud of the increased choice and convenience that initiatives like Web News on Demand and NFB-NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket provide to NFB-NEWSLINE® subscribers.” NFB-NEWSLINE®, which began operation in 1995, offers over 275 newspapers and magazines as well as TV listings to over 65,000 subscribers through a standard touch-tone telephone. With the exciting launch of NFB-NEWSLINE® Online, subscribers also now have unequaled access and unrivaled flexibility in how they read their favorite publications. Two new initiatives have been designed to enhance the subscriber’s experience: Web News on Demand and NFB-NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket. Through the easy-to-use Web News on Demand feature, subscribers can, for the first time ever, visit a secure Web site that offers a customizable reading experience and the ability to send entire publications, particular sections, or single articles to their e-mail inbox. NFB- NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket is a dynamic software application that a subscriber installs on his or her computer. Through an Internet connection, this software automatically downloads the publications of the subscriber’s choice to his or her portable digital talking book player (such as the Victor Reader Stream or Icon/Braille+). Jerry Moreno, a retired social worker from North Carolina, said: “I love being able to get my favorite papers onto my digital talking book player in such an easy and quick way! NFB-NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket does it all for me, so that I can go about my morning routine and by the time I’m done my papers are loaded and ready for me to read along with my cup of coffee.” David DeNotaris, director of Bureau of Blindness & Visual Services with the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, said: “As a husband, father, avid sports fan, and busy professional, I particularly appreciate the fact that Web News on Demand allows me to access relevant local, national, and international news quickly, simply, and independently.” To experience the groundbreaking features of NFB-NEWSLINE® Online, please visit www.nfbnewslineonline.org. For further information please write to swhite at nfb.org or call (866) 504-7300. ### About the National Federation of the Blind With more than 50,000 members, the National Federation of the Blind is the largest and most influential membership organization of blind people in the United States. The NFB improves blind people's lives through advocacy, education, research, technology, and programs encouraging independence and self-confidence. It is the leading force in the blindness field today and the voice of the nation's blind. In January 2004 the NFB opened the National Federation of the Blind Jernigan Institute, the first research and training center in the United States for the blind led by the blind. From joramsey at cox.net Wed Apr 1 02:51:30 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:51:30 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Greetings Rod, I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text- to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >> that is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>> Smyth ; Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>> able to read e- books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>> electronic formats, people with print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>> efforts of this coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>> books available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>> is outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>> people with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>> information and knowledge, without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>> cognitive disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>> mission of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>> wants the right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>> cornerstone of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>> at work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>> Bazelon Center for Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 1 05:09:03 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:09:03 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought In-Reply-To: <5E3AA80EBBD94D86A8F493533B534922@Scorpio13> References: <1146423434.1444691238519116668.JavaMail.root@sz0094a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371C45@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> <5E3AA80EBBD94D86A8F493533B534922@Scorpio13> Message-ID: <045B7B63CB2640D2AB4AF04030410A7D@spike> this is why we need to be pushing for stronger regulations and enforcement regarding product accessibility. This should be no different then adopting product safety standards. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Danielsen" To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought >I read another blog post from writer Corry Doctorow today indicating this > same problem: we do not own what we think we own. Doctorow in effect asked > his readers to put themselves in the position of the purchaser of a Kindle > 2. When the purchaser bought the device, it was advertised as having the > ability to read e-books aloud. But when Amazon makes the technical changes > that allow authors and publishers to disable their books, the Kindle 2 > will > not work as advertised at least some of the time. Amazon will probably > coerce the purchaser into accepting this change by requiring that he or > she > download the firmware making this modification in order to be permitted to > purchase more e-books. Nowadays the devices we purchase can turn on us, > without warning and with no input from us, simply because the device > manufacturer, under pressure from some faction or other, makes a firmware > modification that causes an advertised feature to disappear or become > severely restricted. Authors, Doctorow suggested, should be the last > people > to make themselves party to such a reading device--a device that controls > how the reader can use content at the whim of third parties. > > I'll forward the original post to this list if I can find it, since > Doctorow > expressed the problem better than me and also made some very coherent > arguments about why the Authors Guild is wrong about text-to-speech. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of craig.borne at dot.gov > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:10 PM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought > > Hi Craig, > > One major difference I see is that a library book is never owned by the > patron. It is merely borrowed. > > On the other hand, the patron who purchases the electronic book on the > Kindle is purchasing the same privileages as one who purchases a hard > copy of the book, yet that purchase, though promising ownership of the > book, is severely limited as to the portability of that book, which is > not the case with a hard bound book. > > My impression of the article's focus was that we are indeed heading into > a great technological age, but we also seem to be giving up certain > privileages along the way. ITunes is another great example: I can > purchase an entire albumn of music, but I am limited in how I want to > listen to that music. I am also limited in allowing my neighbor to > borrow the albumn to decide whether or not he is interested in > purchasing it for himself (I am not suggesting any copying of the albumn > in this example). > > Craig > > Craig Borne > NHTSA/DOT > (202) 493-0627 > craig.borne at dot.gov > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of Craig R. Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:05 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought > > Dave, > > Heady thoughts indeed. But isn't Ms. Walsh a little too alarmist? > How, after all, is a digitalized book on a Kindle Reader significantly > different in this respect from a borrowed library book? Thanks in any > event for posting the essay. Regards. > > Craig > ----- David B Andrews wrote: >> With all the discussion about the Kindle, and what it permits, and >> doesn't permit, I thought this might be of interest to some. >> >> David Andrews >> >> >> Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought >> >> By Emily Walshe >> The Christian Science Monitor >> from the March 18, 2009 edition >> > <http://www.csmonitor.com/200 > 9/0318/p09s01-coop.html> >> >> Brookville, N.Y. - All you really need to know about >> the dangers of digital commodification you learned in >> kindergarten. >> >> Think back. Remember swapping your baloney sandwich for >> Jell-o pudding? Now, imagine handing over your sandwich >> and getting just a spoon. >> >> That's one trade you'd never make again. >> >> Yet that's just what millions of Americans are doing >> every day when they read "books" on Kindle, Amazon's e- >> reading device. In our rush to adopt new technologies, >> we have too readily surrendered ownership in favor of >> its twisted sister, access. >> >> Web 2.0 and its culture of collaboration supposedly >> unleashed a sharing society. But we can share only what >> we own. And as more and more content gets digitized, >> commercialized, and monopolized, our cultural integrity >> is threatened. The free and balanced flow of >> information that gives shape to democratic society is >> jeopardized. >> >> For now, though, Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. >> Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want >> it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds >> away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display >> ... looks and reads like real paper." >> >> But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or >> share your books - because you don't own them. You can >> download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult >> to read anything that is not routed through Amazon >> first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access >> to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a >> library, because there is no public investment. It's >> like taking an interest-only mortgage out on >> intellectual property. >> >> If our flailing economy is to teach us anything, it >> might be that an on-demand world of universal access >> (with words like lease, licensure, and liquidity) gets >> us into trouble. Amazon and other e-media aggregators >> know that digital text is the irrational exuberance of >> the day, and so are seizing the opportunity to codify, >> commodify, and control access for tomorrow. But access >> doesn't "look and read" like printed paper at all - >> just ask any forlorn investor. Access is useless >> currency. >> >> Why is this important? Because Kindle is the kind of >> technology that challenges media freedom and restricts >> media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William >> Leach calls "the landscape of the temporary": a hyper >> mobile and rootless society that prefers access to >> ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers >> of selective censorship and control. >> >> Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to >> lock in its library, raises critical questions about >> the nature of property and identity in digital culture. >> Culture plays a large role - in some ways, larger than >> government - in shaping who we are as individuals in a >> society. The First Amendment protects our right to >> participate in the production of that culture. The >> widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly >> every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, >> to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big- >> time threat to free expression and assembly. >> >> When Facebook, for example, proposed revisions to its >> terms of service last month - claiming ownership of >> user profiles and personal data - the successful >> backlash it spawned caused complex (even existential) >> ideas about property, identity, and capitulation to >> bubble up: Is my Facebook profile the essence of who I >> am? If so, who owns me? >> >> The hallmark of a constitutionally governed society, >> after all, is the acknowledgment that we are the >> authors of our own experience. In an Internet age, this >> is manifest not only in published works, but also an >> ever-evolving host of user-generated content (Twitter, >> Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). If service providers >> lay claim to digital content now, how will it all end? >> >> Print may be dying, but the idea of print would be the >> more critical demise: the idea that there needs to be a >> record - an artifact of permanence, residence, and >> posterity - that is independent of some well-appointed >> thingamajig in order to be seen, touched, understood, >> or wholly possessed. >> >> "You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture," >> Ray Bradbury once said. "Just get people to stop >> reading them." >> >> Access equals control. In this case, it is control over >> what is read and what is not; what is referenced and >> what is overlooked; what is retained and what is >> deleted; what is and what seems to be. >> >> To kindle, we must remember, is to set fire to. The >> combustible power of this device (and others like it) >> lies in their quiet but constant claim to intangible, >> algorithmic capital. What the Kindle should be igniting >> is serious debate on the fundamental, inalienable right >> to property in a digital age - and clarifying what's >> yours, mine, and ours. >> >> It should strike a match against the winner-take-all >> casino economies that this kind of technology >> engenders; revitalize American libraries and other >> social institutions in their quest to preserve the >> doctrines of fair use and first sale (which allow for >> free and lawful sharing); and finally, spark Americans >> to consider the extent to which they are handing over >> their baloney sandwich for a plastic spoon. >> >> Like a lot of people, I'm a sucker for a good book. But >> not at the expense of freedom, or foreclosure of >> thought. >> >> >> Emily Walshe is a librarian and professor at Long >> Island University in New York. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mar.cra%40comc > ast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 > dot.gov > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From mworkman at ualberta.ca Wed Apr 1 05:12:18 2009 From: mworkman at ualberta.ca (mworkman at ualberta.ca) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 1 05:28:18 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:28:18 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The currency ruling is not going any higher as the Treasury Department decided not to appeal it. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Greetings Rod, I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text- to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >> that is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>> Smyth ; Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>> able to read e- books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>> electronic formats, people with print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>> efforts of this coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>> books available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>> is outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>> people with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>> information and knowledge, without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>> cognitive disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>> mission of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>> wants the right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>> cornerstone of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>> at work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>> Bazelon Center for Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Wed Apr 1 09:32:00 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:32:00 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Mark, A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're legally right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what happened, but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such a contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. I buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, that would be an entirely different matter. In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will eventually equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From joramsey at cox.net Wed Apr 1 09:32:23 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:32:23 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <440DF2F4E2C441C19BCAFAFFC6A80572@noneeb869fea9a> Well Chuck, That is subject to change and if they do appeal it will be overturned and in my humble opinion, rightfully so. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:28 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books The currency ruling is not going any higher as the Treasury Department decided not to appeal it. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Greetings Rod, I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text- to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >> that is at best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a >> bookshare situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon >> loses its character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to >> Allow Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>> Smyth ; Christine G. Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don >>>> Galloway ; Donna Wood ; Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside the Authors Guild headquarters in New >>>> York City at 31 East 32nd Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>> able to read e- books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under >>>> pressure from the Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>> electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the >>>> first time in history the opportunity to enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>> efforts of this coalition. Although much rhetoric is made about >>>> potential obstacles and problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>> books available to tens of thousands of individuals who are blind >>>> or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>> is outrageous when a technology device shuts out people with all >>>> kinds of disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have long dreamed of a world in which books and media >>>> are available to us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>> people with disabilities being left out of education, employment, >>>> and the societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>> information and knowledge, without delay or additional expense. >>>> Authors and publishers surely must share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>> cognitive disabilities that impact their ability to acquire >>>> information with their eyes only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>> mission of ICDRI supports the removal of barriers in electronic and >>>> information technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly mobile society, flexibility in access to content >>>> improves the quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>> wants the right to be seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to >>>> change the technology of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>> cornerstone of education and democracy. New technologies must >>>> serve individuals with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>> at work on making the device's navigational features accessible to >>>> the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>> Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, >>>> Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglob al.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Wed Apr 1 10:21:23 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:21:23 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Cory Doctorow: Authors have lost the plot in Kindle battle Message-ID: <3E894B21ECC14A369D7C30DD97886CB9@Scorpio13> Cory Doctorow, The Guardian March 31, 2009 Authors have lost the plot in Kindle battle http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/31/cory-doctorow-kindle Amazon's Kindle 2 text-to-speech feature is not so much violating authors' copyright but rather basic consumer rights The Amazon Kindle 2's release in February was attended by much fanfare and controversy: Kindle customers were delighted to discover that Amazon had upgraded the Kindle's feature-set so that it could use a credible text-to-speech synthesiser to read the books aloud. This set off the Authors Guild (an organisation that is also on record as opposing making books searchable through Google, and making used books available through Amazon), who claimed that Amazon was in violation of copyright, since only the rightsholder could authorise an "audiobook adaptation" of a book. As a point of law, I think that the Authors Guild is just wrong here, for the obvious reasons that: 1. It's not an infringement for a Kindle owner to use technology privately to modify a copyrighted work. If you own a painting, you can take a photo of it to carry around in your wallet - without paying the painter any extra. You can rip your CDs at home without the musician's permission. And you can use a technology to convert an ebook to a text-to-speech audiobook in your home without paying the author or getting his or her permission. The question gets murkier if we're talking about selling or giving away those photos, MP3s, and audio editions, but that's not what the Guild objects to - they say that the conversion itself infringes copyright. 2. Even if I'm wrong and it is an infringement to convert an ebook to a text-to-speech reading, Amazon's hands are clean, because the infringer is the person who presses the "read aloud" button - that is, the Kindle owner. Xerox doesn't have to make photocopiers that only copy public domain works. Apple doesn't have to make a version of iTunes that only rips CDs you own, and rejects ones you've borrowed off your mates. Microsoft can ship Windows without making sure that the files in the file-system don't infringe on copyright. The Mozilla Foundation can give away versions of Firefox, even though the browser can just as handily be used to download infringing material as non- infringing material. But ultimately, the legality of the feature is irrelevant - as is the nonsensical discussion about whether the Kindle's text-to-speech is (or will someday be) as good as a commercial, human-generated audiobook (the answers being, "No," and "The day that artificial intelligence gives us perfect Kindle readings, we'll have bigger fish to fry than audiobook rights"). The reason it's irrelevant is that Amazon wants to get licenses from members of the Authors Guild in order to sell their books in the Kindle store. And when Amazon goes to those members, they can simply say, "No, I won't let you sell my books because the Kindle has a text-to-speech capability and I don't like it." No need to go into bizarre, long- winded speculations about whether copyright law requires Amazon to build copyright enforcement into its devices, or whether Jeff Bezos's crack team of AI wizards at Amazon are about to unleash an army of superintelligent artificial voice-actors, sandwiched within the Kindle's slender chassis. The Authors Guild can simply say: "We advise our members to withhold licenses from the Kindle store because we think the Kindle format is bad for our business." Now, I happen to disagree with that position because I don't think that text-to-speech is a substitute for audiobooks for the majority of listeners, and because the value of text-to-speech is such that people will buy enough ebooks to offset any losses from substitution, and, most importantly, authors who oppose this feature look like grasping, greedy jerks and will alienate their readers. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong, but the important thing is, we don't need new theories about copyright law to test the proposition. The existing, totally non-controversial aspect of copyright law that says, "Amazon can't publish and sell my book without my permission" covers the territory nicely. But while we were all running our mouths about the plausibility of the singularity emerging from Amazon's text-to-speech R&D, a much juicier issue was escaping our notice: it is technically possible for Amazon to switch off the text-to-speech feature for some or all books. That's a hell of a thing, isn't it? Now that Amazon has agreed with the Authors Guild that text-to-speech will only be switched on for authors who sign a contract permitting it, we should all be goggling in amazement at the idea that this can be accomplished. After all, the Kindle customers who've already received their units, bought devices that were advertised as "capable of reading Kindle books aloud", not "reading some Kindle books aloud". The only ways that Amazon could accomplish this is: 1. If they had anticipated this outcome and secretly enabled this feature before shipping the Kindles - effectively engaging in false advertising, or; 2. If they can force you to downgrade your Kindle to remove the feature (possibly by ending your ongoing access to the Kindle store, or even by terminating your access to your existing Kindle books). Neither of these should inspire confidence in the Kindle as a long- term device. Dropping $359 (£251) on a device whose features are subject to the outcomes of ongoing negotiations to which you are not a party is, frankly, nuts. Would you buy a car if it was known that your air-conditioner and stereo system could be remotely disabled? Or if we suddenly discovered that the manufacturer could remotely lock you out of your boot in order to assuage some pressure group who'd rather you no longer be allowed to carry parcels around? It's one thing for next year's model to ship without the fantastic stereo system but it's another thing entirely for the manufacturer to rip it out of your dashboard after you've bought it. If I were running the Authors Guild, this would be my number one issue: we can't afford to allow our books to be used to lure readers into purchasing devices that can turn against them. Because whatever bad feelings arise from this, some of them will surely be visited upon us. Novelists know that a gun on the mantelpiece in act one is apt to go off by the third act. If we want to talk about potential outcomes for Amazon, then one in which the company disappears, changes hands, or loses its mind should get far more consideration from us than the possibility that it will mastermind major technological breakthroughs in machine-speech synthesis. And on the day that Amazon goes crazy, goes under, or goes to the dogs, our readers - the people whose long-term goodwill we depend on to earn our livings - face the possibility of having their Kindles arbitrarily downgraded, refeatured, or otherwise modified to attack them and the books they've bought from us. If I were running the Authors Guild, I'd be sounding the alarm to my members to license their ebooks only for formats and devices that give our readers - our customers - a fair deal that makes them glad to have supported us. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From johnrsheehan at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 10:39:56 2009 From: johnrsheehan at yahoo.com (John Sheehan) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in the first place)? Seems difficult to sustain their argument.   Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ Xavier Society for the Blind Office 212 473-7800 Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. ________________________________ From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material  to a friend.  When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy.  In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission.  Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission.  The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice.  I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS.  And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think.  I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to.  But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest.  If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument  suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such  an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question.  You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...".  If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population.  However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts.  Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation.  I am afraid that this listserv  might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >>  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities.  This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals.  They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m.  The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology.  Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information.  As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books.  This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity.  This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities.  AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access.  New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time.  We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation.  We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense.  Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision.  Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody.  Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively.  This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said:  "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access.  ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history.  We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on.  Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language.  In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard.  By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more.  By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy.  New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them.  Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.  In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yahoo.com From angie at mpmail.net Wed Apr 1 12:01:04 2009 From: angie at mpmail.net (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:01:04 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that created a copy of a program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an additional "copy" being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a "copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently violates performance rights. Angie On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Marc: >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai >l.com >> >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.net From everett at zufelt.ca Wed Apr 1 12:59:13 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:59:13 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <92EF0782-50C8-49D4-B59F-FF5F043FC9AE@zufelt.ca> Good morning, I do not have an answer to your question. However, I do have a question of my own, as I am unfamiliar with U.S. copyright law. Is a copyright holder permitted to license their work for specific purposes? If so, how specific can the author be regarding the license within current copyright law? Is it fair to argue that an author has the right to license their work to be read on the screen of a specific device, and that it is not to be used in combination with technology, on that or any other device, that would allow for the work to be read aloud, without an additional license fee? A somewhat unrelated licensing issue is in the case of Apple v. Psystar. Psystar purchases retail versions of the Apple OS X operating system and installs it on their clone computers which they then sell. Apple claims that the OS X license agreement limits the use of OS X to Apple hardware. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9991572-56.html Thanks, Everett On 1-Apr-09, at 7:39 AM, John Sheehan wrote: > My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for > over twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put > forward and on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating > their copyright by having my computer read it aloud? You do not need > to be visually impaired or registered with any agency to have access > to that software. If someone else is in the room with me - does that > increase the offense (if one exists in the first place)? > > Seems difficult to sustain their argument. > > Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ > Xavier Society for the Blind > Office 212 473-7800 > Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by > searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com > - powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the > difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is > the > misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are > against > TTS capability on the Kindle. > > Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted > material to a > friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of > his book, > he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the > publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go > ahead > and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead > and make > an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons > with a > print disability, but you do have to register to have access to > RFB&D books. > > The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the > Kindle > is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates > copyright > to make it available without their permission, just like it would be > if > Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the > copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing > to do > with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > > Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between > a human > being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've > also heard > some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would > probably be > surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is > reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader > will be > increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but > perhaps > close enough. > > The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally > unfounded as > you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if > their team > of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's > probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the > opposing > side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend > the > protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me > as > important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one > side wasn't > really being represented in this case. > > Best, > > Marc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening > to books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so > they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense > when a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this > argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible > to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This > machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to > prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way > interferes with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it > would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that > this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that > because blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where > someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also > constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation > certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because > unlike the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; > they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to > the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious > violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here > cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these > books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use > their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user > downloads a book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; > however, when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, > transfers them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different > situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the > two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing > copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the > other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point > is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in > fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an > exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, > exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a > violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, > and then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and > completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your > disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the > distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution > of > copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not > adhear to > the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do > with you > getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these > materials. > Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any > kind. No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this > device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached > conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by > allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with > some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. > By asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in > the shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. > Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > to Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted > books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, > Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, > Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability > information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with > audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it >> exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>>> text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the >> strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human >>>> rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, >>>>> which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon >>>>> Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech >>>>> on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to >>>>> read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the >>>>> Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and >>>>> societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton >>>>> Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books >>>>> become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>>> (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, >>>>> and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild >>>>> to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical >>>>> in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who >>>>> rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why >>>>> the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, >>>>> the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources >>>>> on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International >>>>> Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com >> > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > . > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > . > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yahoo.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.ca From mworkman at ualberta.ca Wed Apr 1 15:42:36 2009 From: mworkman at ualberta.ca (mworkman at ualberta.ca) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:42:36 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Message-ID: That is helpful Chris. Regarding why Amazon backed down, we don't really know. Your point is well taken that it could have had nothing to do with the legal foundation of the arguments of the authors's guild. But regarding your second point, I'm still a little puzzled. I see a difference between creating your own audio copy in the privacy of your home, which would constitute fair use, and selling an unauthorized audio copy, which is what the authors's guild is accusing Amazon of doing. So if the quality of the audio reproduction isn't the issue, as you stated below, then this implies that you agree that Amazon is selling an audio copy of the work along side the print copy. Think of it this way, you download the print copy, and you can simply press play, and it begins reading allowed. It certainly seems to function like an audio copy if you ignore the lesser quality. To me, selling an unauthorized audio copy of a work is distinct from creating your own audio copy under fair use. It is equivalent to a publisher putting out a paper back when they only have permission to put out a hard cover copy. You can go ahead and copy the hard cover and make it feel like a paper back on your own, under fair use, but this is not the same as the publisher selling you both formats when they aren't authorized to do so. I think we agree that it would be wrong for Amazon to hier a bunch of readers and sell audio copies of an author's works to audible without the author's permission, so unless you want to argue that TTS doesn't count as an audio copy for some set of reasons, which you seem to back away from in your post below, then why isn't it equally wrong for Amazon to sell an audio copy through the Kindle without the authors's permission? I don't want to come across as someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing. I would love to have access to Amazon's collection, and I would prefer not to have to register with Amazon in order to get it. I support the NFB's efforts to make this happen. I just can't help but thinking that the authors's have a legitimate argument. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:32 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Mark, A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're legally right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what happened, but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such a contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. I buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, that would be an entirely different matter. In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will eventually equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca From chatter8712 at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 16:31:46 2009 From: chatter8712 at gmail.com (Shane D) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:31:46 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Message-ID: <7556b95a0904010931j3b14c316od2ea8248ad8d33e1@mail.gmail.com> So would you claim that Jaws for Windows or Window Eyes should be paying a license fee to all copyright holders in America, because their TTS provides the ability to read aloud their printed work? On 4/1/09, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: > That is helpful Chris. Regarding why Amazon backed down, we don't really > know. Your point is well taken that it could have had nothing to do with > the legal foundation of the arguments of the authors's guild. > > But regarding your second point, I'm still a little puzzled. I see a > difference between creating your own audio copy in the privacy of your home, > which would constitute fair use, and selling an unauthorized audio copy, > which is what the authors's guild is accusing Amazon of doing. So if the > quality of the audio reproduction isn't the issue, as you stated below, then > this implies that you agree that Amazon is selling an audio copy of the work > along side the print copy. Think of it this way, you download the print > copy, and you can simply press play, and it begins reading allowed. It > certainly seems to function like an audio copy if you ignore the lesser > quality. To me, selling an unauthorized audio copy of a work is distinct > from creating your own audio copy under fair use. It is equivalent to a > publisher putting out a paper back when they only have permission to put out > a hard cover copy. You can go ahead and copy the hard cover and make it > feel like a paper back on your own, under fair use, but this is not the same > as the publisher selling you both formats when they aren't authorized to do > so. > > I think we agree that it would be wrong for Amazon to hier a bunch of > readers and sell audio copies of an author's works to audible without the > author's permission, so unless you want to argue that TTS doesn't count as > an audio copy for some set of reasons, which you seem to back away from in > your post below, then why isn't it equally wrong for Amazon to sell an audio > copy through the Kindle without the authors's permission? > > I don't want to come across as someone who is arguing for the sake of > arguing. I would love to have access to Amazon's collection, and I would > prefer not to have to register with Amazon in order to get it. I support > the NFB's efforts to make this happen. I just can't help but thinking that > the authors's have a legitimate argument. > > Best, > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Chris Danielsen > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:32 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Mark, > > A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back > down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or > not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to > withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change > its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're legally > right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what happened, > but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the > authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright > protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the > author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's > contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such a > contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book > without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never > been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have > it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very > good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. I > buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or > partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance > that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not > violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my > home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the > author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, > that would be an entirely different matter. > > In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. > Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will eventually > equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. > Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the > difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the > misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against > TTS capability on the Kindle. > > Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a > friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, > he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the > publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead > and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make > an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a > print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. > > The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle > is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright > to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if > Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the > copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do > with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > > Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human > being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard > some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be > surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is > reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be > increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps > close enough. > > The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as > you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team > of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's > probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing > side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the > protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as > important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't > really being represented in this case. > > Best, > > Marc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis >  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your > disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the > distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of > copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to > the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you > getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. > Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis >  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted > books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, > Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, > Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability > information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with > audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com >> > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmail.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek From mikefry79 at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 17:03:56 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:03:56 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> References: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904011003t565107e9tb5efa5b4b7c0a0d3@mail.gmail.com> Yea Marc, I don't know man. You raise some good points but I still think you're giving the Guild to much credit. Angie and Chris make some great points. In addition to their arguments, it really irks me that the Guild is obstructing epistemological (technical) progress. An invention has been created that will truly improve the quality of blind peoples lives. The Guild is obstructing our access to this invention. The Guilds actions, in part, will undoubtedly bully people with disabilities into buying a more expensive form of media. The Guild will extort as much money as they can out of the weaker disabled community then through their arms up in surrender and say it's ok to use the software because undoubtedly pirated version of it will be rampid. Thus the Guilds position is unsustainable, which makes it even more immoral. This is different than a lot of other things. This isn't a Conservative v. liberal issue or a free market v. regulations issue. This really is about preventing the incorporation of an existing invention into a device that will improve the human condition. It's analogous to the American Medical Association opposing mandatory seat belts in cars since seat belts reduce hospital profits because they minimize injuries. Here, the only difference is that the victim of the Guilds stance is a weak minority, the text disabled community. People in the general public don't think about us, so they don't care about us. The Guilds actions will only affect us, not the general public. The general public would never opt to listen to text-2-speech software over reading since it is far less enjoyable because it is read by a monotone robot. This is a reason the Guild thinks their actions are OK, it will only affect us. One day, the text-2-speech may sound like a human reading but it doesn't right now and even if it did that is not the same as a human reading. That's the point, it is not the same. Maybe text-2-speech technology will eventually replace human read audiobooks but that's not our problem. The Guild should not be making our lives worse by preventing the incorporation of simple technology. Finally, I hope you're wrong Marc about this not being a legal slam dunk. Equity and fairness demand that this software be incorporated with no strings attached. Whether the law will support this, I don't know, but I hope that it does. On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Chris Danielsen wrote: > Mark, > > A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back > down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or > not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to > withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change > its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're > legally > right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what > happened, > but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the > authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright > protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the > author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's > contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such > a > contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book > without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never > been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have > it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very > good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. > I > buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or > partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance > that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not > violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my > home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the > author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, > that would be an entirely different matter. > > In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. > Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will > eventually > equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. > Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the > difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the > misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against > TTS capability on the Kindle. > > Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to > a > friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his > book, > he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the > publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead > and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and > make > an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a > print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D > books. > > The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle > is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright > to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if > Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the > copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do > with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > > Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human > being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also > heard > some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be > surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is > reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be > increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps > close enough. > > The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded > as > you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their > team > of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's > probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing > side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the > protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as > important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side > wasn't > really being represented in this case. > > Best, > > Marc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this > argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because > blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where > someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a > book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, > when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers > them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing > copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and > completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your > disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the > distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of > copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to > the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you > getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. > Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached > conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By > asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted > books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, > Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, > Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability > information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with > audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > > Good evening, > > > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > > for profit, a vulnerable minority > >> > >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like > >>> some kind > >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- > >>> to-speech technology...". > > > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > > argument on either side of this issue. > > > > Thanks, > > Everett > > > > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > > > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously > >> being > >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that > >> is at > >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare > >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its > >> character > >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. > >> > >> Rod Alcidonis > >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >> Roger Williams University School of Law > >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >> Bristol, RI 02809 > >> Home: (401) 824-8685 > >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On > >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt > >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM > >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > >> to Allow > >> Everyone Access to E-books > >> > >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? > >> > >> Everett > >> > >> > >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: > >> > >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such > >>> a noble > >>> and worthy cause. > >>> > >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights > >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority > >>> of the > >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind > >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and > >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle > >>> in path > >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to > >>> exploit > >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too > >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are > >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. > >>> The > >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be > >>> ashamed > >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their > >>> position. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica > >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth > >>>> Rival ; > >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; > >>>> Christine G. > >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; > >>>> Elsie Lamp > >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; > >>>> Gary Ray ; > >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; > >>>> Jennelle > >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John > >>>> Batron ; John > >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; > >>>> Marie > >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; > >>>> Michael > >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; > >>>> Richard > >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; > >>>> Scott > >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; > >>>> Tommy > >>>> Craig > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM > >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone > >>>> Access to > >>>> E-books > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> CONTACT: > >>>> > >>>> Chris Danielsen > >>>> > >>>> Director of Public Relations > >>>> > >>>> National Federation of the Blind > >>>> > >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 > >>>> > >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) > >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow > >>>> Everyone Access to E-books > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which > >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the > >>>> threatened removal > >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 > >>>> outside > >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd > >>>> Street on > >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the > >>>> blind, > >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, > >>>> seniors > >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering > >>>> from > >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on > >>>> the > >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to > >>>> over 245,000 > >>>> books. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on > >>>> February 9, > >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- > >>>> books > >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the > >>>> Authors > >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and > >>>> publishers the > >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of > >>>> their > >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, > >>>> said: > >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech > >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances > >>>> and more > >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with > >>>> print > >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to > >>>> enjoy > >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. > >>>> Authors > >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- > >>>> books on the > >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have > >>>> > >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is > >>>> blatant > >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and > >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal > >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of > >>>> opportunity. This > >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this > >>>> coalition. > >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and > >>>> problems that > >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. > >>>> And why > >>>> create something that prevents it?" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, > >>>> said: > >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an > >>>> innovative > >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books > >>>> available to tens > >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the > >>>> American > >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is > >>>> outrageous when > >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of > >>>> disabilities. AAPD > >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in > >>>> technology, and > >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by > >>>> having to pay > >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, > >>>> should be > >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." > >>>> > >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the > >>>> American > >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print > >>>> disabilities have > >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to > >>>> us at the > >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility > >>>> for the > >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- > >>>> to-speech > >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt > >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become > >>>> the > >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people > >>>> with > >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the > >>>> societal > >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their > >>>> participation > >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) > >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where > >>>> people with > >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, > >>>> without > >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must > >>>> share this > >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and > >>>> the > >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to > >>>> reverse > >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively > >>>> encouraging all > >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of > >>>> reading to > >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is > >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in > >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on > >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with > >>>> autism, > >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive > >>>> disabilities > >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes > >>>> only. I > >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come > >>>> to > >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- > >>>> speech > >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center > >>>> for > >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission > >>>> of ICDRI > >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information > >>>> technology > >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- > >>>> speech > >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases > >>>> mainstream > >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the > >>>> Authors > >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would > >>>> be sold > >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only > >>>> > >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also > >>>> helps > >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an > >>>> increasingly > >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the > >>>> quality of > >>>> life for everyone." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: > >>>> "Knowing > >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the > >>>> right to be > >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology > >>>> of Kindle > >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are > >>>> disabled, or > >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the > >>>> Authors > >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the > >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for > >>>> Learning > >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone > >>>> of > >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals > >>>> with > >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately > >>>> our > >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating > >>>> practices and > >>>> beliefs from the past." > >>>> > >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, > >>>> Amazon > >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at > >>>> work on > >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with > >>>> Disabilities, > >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, > >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for > >>>> Mental > >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information > >>>> System > >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund > >>>> (DREDF), > >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on > >>>> the > >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia > >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, > >>>> Learning > >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning > >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National > >>>> Federation of the > >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In > >>>> addition > >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will > >>>> participate in the > >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ### > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> blindlaw mailing list > >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >>>> for > >>>> blindlaw: > >>>> > >>>> > >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail > >> > >> . > >> com > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blindlaw mailing list > >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >>> for blindlaw: > >>> > >> > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > >> a > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >> blindlaw: > >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > >> > >> . > >> com > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >> for blindlaw: > >> > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com > > > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From benkarpilow at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 17:09:38 2009 From: benkarpilow at gmail.com (Ben Karpilow) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:09:38 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws Message-ID: Hello all, my name is Benjamin Karpilow. I'm new to this list. I am a 4th year law student at Empire College School of Law in Santa Rosa, California, and will be graduated this June. I have signed up to take the July California Bar Examination. I became visually impaired in 2003 and am not a proficient enough braille user to take the barr exam in this manner. Instead, I'd like to take it using Jaws. Does anyone have any experience taking the bar using Jaws. Also do the bar examiners allow test takers to use Jaws for one section, but not another, i.e., OK for essay questions but not the performance exam. Responses from those who have taken the california bar would be most helpful, but I welcome feedback from past bar takers from all jurisdictions. Regards, Ben Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 From roddj12 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 17:31:32 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:31:32 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I believe it was Mark who suggested that there is some validity in the Guild's argument. Well, in a law school classroom as a hypo, in moot court competitions, I would agree, but not in a court of law. An attorney would have to go at length at the expense of his/her credibility to sustain a favorable ruling on this case. If it were the other way around, as the Guild is containing, the use of readers to read printed text would be prima facie copyright violations. The absurdity goes as so far to suggest that if you read the books with your eyes, it's OK; if you listen to it being read by a computer voice, it is a violation. Well, this is fair use. The computer voice is not retaining the information in a storage device for distribution. Would there be a copyright violation also when Apple allowed their Ipods to be read with speech? The analyses that have gone as deep to validate the Guild's position as an act of performance is in all due respect, beyond the point; rather, it sounds more just like lecturing on copyright laws. And, I am not making an emotional argument here; I do not care about the Kindle; I hate these text to speech voices. If one uses them exclusively, you might eventually lose your ability to utilize the rules of grammar in your writing, in my opinion. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John Sheehan Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:40 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in the first place)? Seems difficult to sustain their argument.   Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ Xavier Society for the Blind Office 212 473-7800 Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. ________________________________ From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material  to a friend.  When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy.  In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission.  Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission.  The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice.  I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS.  And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think.  I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to.  But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest.  If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument  suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such  an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question.  You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...".  If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population.  However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts.  Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation.  I am afraid that this listserv  might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >>  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities.  This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals.  They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m.  The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology.  Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information.  As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books.  This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity.  This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities.  AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access.  New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time.  We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation.  We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense.  Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision.  Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody.  Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively.  This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said:  "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access.  ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history.  We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on.  Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language.  In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard.  By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more.  By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy.  New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them.  Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.  In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yah oo.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From mworkman at ualberta.ca Wed Apr 1 17:32:59 2009 From: mworkman at ualberta.ca (mworkman at ualberta.ca) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:32:59 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <200904011643.n31GhBNf032570@mail4.srv.ualberta.ca> Message-ID: I read the Doctorow article forwarded by Chris earlier, and it was helpful in clearing up some of my confusion. He seems to be saying that Amazon was not selling an audio book, but merely the capability to make your own audio book. I see the distinction, but it's difficult to see a real difference. So it would be wrong if Amazon allowed you to download an mp3 every time you downloaded the print version, but it's okay that Amazon gives you the ability to create an audio rendering with every download of a print copy. What I find odd is that the two cases might be functionally identical (i.e., you can play, stop, fast forward and rewind exactly the same in both cases), and yet one is allowed and the other is not. A screen reader such as jaws doesn't function like an mp3 rendering of the text. You can go through the text character by character, you can tell it what punctuation to speak allowed, and it's designed to translate any text on the screen into speech, not just books. Without knowing the details of the Kindle's TTS, it seems to function more like an mp3 recording of the work. Can you move through the text character by character? Can you decide what punctuation you want it to speak allowed? I really don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know you can't currently use it to read anything other than the print book, which distinguishes it from a screen reader. So now my question is, if the TTS functions identically with an mp3 recording of the book, then what difference is there between the two? It seems arbitrary to allow one but not the other. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Angie Matney Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:01 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that created a copy of a program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an additional "copy" being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a "copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently violates performance rights. Angie On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Marc: >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gma i >l.com >> >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail . >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail . >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.ne t _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca From everett at zufelt.ca Wed Apr 1 17:41:31 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:41:31 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Cory Doctorow: Authors have lost the plot in Kindle battle In-Reply-To: <3E894B21ECC14A369D7C30DD97886CB9@Scorpio13> References: <3E894B21ECC14A369D7C30DD97886CB9@Scorpio13> Message-ID: Good afternoon, On 1-Apr-09, at 7:21 AM, Chris Danielsen wrote: Cory Doctorow, The Guardian March 31, 2009 > 1. It's not an infringement for a Kindle owner to use technology > privately to modify a copyrighted work. If this is true, it does not answer the question of whether a copyright owner is required to make the work available in a format that is susceptible to modification. But ultimately, the legality of the feature is irrelevant - as is the nonsensical discussion about whether the Kindle's text-to-speech is (or will someday be) as good as a commercial, human-generated audiobook (the answers being, "No," and "The day that artificial intelligence gives us perfect Kindle readings, we'll have bigger fish to fry than audiobook rights"). The reason it's irrelevant is that Amazon wants to get licenses from members of the Authors Guild in order to sell their books in the Kindle store. I do not see how the legality of licensing schemes is irrelevant. Yes, amazon wants to protect its interests and they do this by trying to find a balance that will provide them with the most products to sell to the most number of customers. If the answer to the legal question is that authors and distributors of electronic works cannot prevent their modification, then Amazon does not have to worry about arguing with the copyright holders, although some copyright holders may still choose not to sell their works through Amazon. If the answer is that authors and distributors may restrict the modification of electronic works then Amazon will need to make a decision regarding whether allowing authors to license their works in this fashion will provide them with the greatest return on investment. Thanks, Everett From jackchenonline at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 19:16:21 2009 From: jackchenonline at hotmail.com (Jack Chen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws References: Message-ID: Hello Benjamin I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to use Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a computer for the multistate. jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Karpilow" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > Hello all, my name is Benjamin Karpilow. I'm new to this list. I am a 4th > year law student at Empire College School of Law in Santa Rosa, > California, and will be graduated this June. I have signed up to take the > July California Bar Examination. I became visually impaired in 2003 and am > not a proficient enough braille user to take the barr exam in this manner. > Instead, I'd like to take it using Jaws. Does anyone have any experience > taking the bar using Jaws. Also do the bar examiners allow test takers > to use Jaws for one section, but not another, i.e., OK for essay questions > but not the performance exam. Responses from those who have taken the > california bar would be most helpful, but I welcome feedback from past bar > takers from all jurisdictions. Regards, > > Ben > > > > > > > Benjamin K. Karpilow > benkarpilow at gmail.com > 707-548-8555 > Benjamin K. Karpilow > benkarpilow at gmail.com > 707-548-8555 > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jackchenonline%40hotmail.com > From angie at mpmail.net Wed Apr 1 19:21:35 2009 From: angie at mpmail.net (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:21:35 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Marc, I don't know about controling punctuation, etc., but the Kindle TTS can read web content, like some blogs, apparently. It can also read text files that you create and store on the unit. And even if there is no functional difference, the fact that the device does not create a second copy of a work might be significant. Angie On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:32:59 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >I read the Doctorow article forwarded by Chris earlier, and it was helpful >in clearing up some of my confusion. >He seems to be saying that Amazon was not selling an audio book, but merely >the capability to make your own audio book. I see the distinction, but it's >difficult to see a real difference. So it would be wrong if Amazon allowed >you to download an mp3 every time you downloaded the print version, but it's >okay that Amazon gives you the ability to create an audio rendering with >every download of a print copy. What I find odd is that the two cases might >be functionally identical (i.e., you can play, stop, fast forward and rewind >exactly the same in both cases), and yet one is allowed and the other is >not. >A screen reader such as jaws doesn't function like an mp3 rendering of the >text. You can go through the text character by character, you can tell it >what punctuation to speak allowed, and it's designed to translate any text >on the screen into speech, not just books. Without knowing the details of >the Kindle's TTS, it seems to function more like an mp3 recording of the >work. Can you move through the text character by character? Can you decide >what punctuation you want it to speak allowed? I really don't know the >answers to these questions, but I do know you can't currently use it to read >anything other than the print book, which distinguishes it from a screen >reader. >So now my question is, if the TTS functions identically with an mp3 >recording of the book, then what difference is there between the two? It >seems arbitrary to allow one but not the other. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Angie Matney >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:01 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. >First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent >circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone >else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that >created a copy of a >program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds >actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the >Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an >additional "copy" >being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a >"copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via >TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. >Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently >violates performance rights. >Angie >On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >>You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >>difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >>misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >>TTS capability on the Kindle. >>Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to >a >>friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his >book, >>he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >>publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >>and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and >make >>an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >>print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D >books. >>The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >>is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >>to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >>Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >>copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >>with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >>Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >>being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also >heard >>some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >>surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >>reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >>increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >>close enough. >>The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded >as >>you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their >team >>of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >>probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >>side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >>protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >>important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side >wasn't >>really being represented in this case. >>Best, >>Marc >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >>Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >>toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >>Marc: >>Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >>on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >>conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >>trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >>call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >>purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this >argument >>would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >>violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >>is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >>that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >>the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >>allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >>argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >>argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because >blind >>people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >>bills. You saw what happened there. >>Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where >someone >>borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >>copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >>would be proper use of the device. >>Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >>situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >>just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >>if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >>Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >>Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >>the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >>property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a >book >>from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, >when >>a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers >them, >>and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >>and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >>Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>Roger Williams University School of Law >>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>Bristol, RI 02809 >>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >>Everyone Access to E-books >>Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >>cases are completely different because one involves distributing >copyrighted >>material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >>case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >>exactly what is up for debate. >>The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >>violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >>for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >>as they must in the case of Bookshare. >>Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >>copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >>simply assert X, as you have done. >>Marc >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >>Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >>Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and >completely >>separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >>mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >>Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >>disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >>distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >>copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >>the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >>getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >>Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >>This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >>one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >>already being released with the entity's permission and attached >conditions; >>rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >>people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >>rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By >asking >>for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >>of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >>bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>Roger Williams University School of Law >>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>Bristol, RI 02809 >>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf Of Shane D >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>Everyone Access to E-books >>Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >>books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >>Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >>Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >>information. >>I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >>taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >>audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >>On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >>> Good evening, >>> >>> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >>> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >>> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> >>>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>>> some kind >>>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>>> to-speech technology...". >>> >>> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >>> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >>> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >>> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >>> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >>> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >>> >>> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >>> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >>> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >>> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >>> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >>> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >>> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >>> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >>> argument on either side of this issue. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >>> >>>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>>> being >>>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>>> is at >>>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>>> character >>>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>>> to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>>> >>>> Everett >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>>> a noble >>>>> and worthy cause. >>>>> >>>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>>> of the >>>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>>> in path >>>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>>> exploit >>>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>>> The >>>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>>> ashamed >>>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>>> position. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>>> Rival ; >>>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>>> Christine G. >>>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>>> Jennelle >>>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>>> Batron ; John >>>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>>> Marie >>>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>>> Tommy >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>>> Access to >>>>>> E-books >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CONTACT: >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>>> >>>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>>> >>>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>>> >>>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>>> >>>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>>> threatened removal >>>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>>> outside >>>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>>> Street on >>>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>>> blind, >>>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>>> seniors >>>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>>> from >>>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>>> the >>>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>>> over 245,000 >>>>>> books. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>>> February 9, >>>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>>> books >>>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>>> publishers the >>>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>>> their >>>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>>> said: >>>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>>> and more >>>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>>> print >>>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>>> enjoy >>>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>>> books on the >>>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>>> >>>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>>> blatant >>>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>>> opportunity. This >>>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>>> coalition. >>>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>>> problems that >>>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>>> And why >>>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>>> said: >>>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>>> innovative >>>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>>> available to tens >>>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>>> American >>>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>>> outrageous when >>>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>>> technology, and >>>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>>> having to pay >>>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>>> should be >>>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>>> American >>>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>>> disabilities have >>>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>>> us at the >>>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>>> for the >>>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>>> to-speech >>>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>>> the >>>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>>> with >>>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>>> societal >>>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>>> participation >>>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>>> people with >>>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>>> without >>>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>>> share this >>>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>>> the >>>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>>> reverse >>>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>>> encouraging all >>>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>>> reading to >>>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>>> autism, >>>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>>> disabilities >>>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>>> only. I >>>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>>> to >>>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>>> speech >>>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>>> for >>>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>>> of ICDRI >>>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>>> technology >>>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>>> speech >>>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>>> mainstream >>>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>>> be sold >>>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>>> >>>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>>> helps >>>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>>> increasingly >>>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>>> quality of >>>>>> life for everyone." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>>> "Knowing >>>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>>> right to be >>>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>>> of Kindle >>>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>>> disabled, or >>>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>>> Learning >>>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>>> of >>>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>>> with >>>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>>> our >>>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>>> practices and >>>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>>> >>>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>>> Amazon >>>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>>> work on >>>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>>> Disabilities, >>>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>>> Mental >>>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>>> System >>>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>>> (DREDF), >>>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>>> the >>>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>>> Learning >>>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>>> Federation of the >>>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>>> addition >>>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>>> participate in the >>>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ### >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>>> for >>>>>> blindlaw: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>>> >>>> . >>>> com >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. >c >>>> a >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>>> >>>> . >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. >c >>a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gma >i >>l.com >>> >>-- >>-Shane >>Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >>AIM: inhaddict >>MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >>Skype: chatter8712 >>Twitter: blind_geek >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >. >>com >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber >t >>a.ca >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >. >>com >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber >t >>a.ca >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.ne >t >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.net From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 20:37:38 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:37:38 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Analysis of 2nd Circuit DVR Decision Message-ID: <49d3d08b.050cc00a.66bf.6ccf@mx.google.com> Here's more information on the DVR case I mentioned earlier. Of course, the situations are distinguishable; but the court found that ha DVR provider was not a direct infringer because the "copy" that was created existed for only 1.2 seconds. It also held that transmitting a program to a consumer was not a public performance. Here's the link, followed by the text. www.drmwatch.com/legal/article.php/37654 Appeals Court Reverses Cablevision DVR Decision August 14, 2008 By Solveig Singleton Several content providers (including Cartoon Network and Disney) sued Cablevision, arguing that the cable company's new remote storage digital video recording (DVR) system violated their copyrights. Last Monday, the Second Circuit ruled that the remote DVR system did not directly violate the copyrights, reversing the lower court ruling of last year. The case will be key in deciding whether remote copying services face liability for direct or for contributory infringement. Cablevision's DVR system functioned, in essence, like a Tivo with a very long wire. As Cablevision sent out programming to subscribers, the remote DVR allowed consumers to select certain programs to record and play back later. The actual copying and storage, though, was done off-premises on systems operated by Cablevision. (Cablevision, of course, had a license to send the programs out to subscribers, and the content providers and Cablevision agreed that the license did not authorize the new remote DVR service). >From the content standpoint, then, someone is making unlicensed copies (setting aside arguments about fair use). but who? Cablevision, or the consumer? The consumer chooses which buttons to push-but Cablevision operates the physical equipment. If Cablevision is the legal actor, Cablevision faces direct liability; but if it is the consumer, Cablevision faces only indirect liability-contributory infringement, as did Grokster. The content companies opted for the argument that Cablevision was directly liable, won in the court below, but lost the appeal. The court below had ruled, first, that Cablevision's remote DVR system violated copyright directly in holding the stream of programming in RAM briefly in the ordinary course of operations. The Second Circuit rejected this; the Copyright Act requires that a copy be "fixed," or embodied in the buffer for more than a transitory period, and Cablevision's system held the data for no more than 1.2 seconds. The Second Circuit next examined the argument that Cablevision should be directly liable for creating the playback copies. Earlier cases involved remote copying over the Internet, the question of whether an ISP would be liable when its system automatically copied a work posted by a customer. The answer then was "no." Cablevision's remote DVR is like the ISP, in that it supplies the system, but doesn't push the button. The Court explained that what mattered was whose volition was exercised in making the copy. Here, the volitional acts were Cablevision's, in designing the system, and the consumers', in pushing the buttons to order a copy be made. The court in this case found an analogy to the VCR persuasive: the key volitional act is the consumers', not Cablevision's. The district court had compared the remote DVR analogous to a copy shop that made copies for professors. The professors supplied the material, and the copy shop copied it; the copy shop was directly liable. Here the Second Circuit again focused on volition. Because the copy shop employed a human being to make the copies, the copy shop had exercised its volition. Cablevision's system responded automatically, and thus did not. But Cablevision also supplies the content, making the choice of programming and licensing it. Is that enough to make a difference? Here the Second Circuit made a judgment call: "This conduct is indeed more proximate to the creation of illegal copying than, say, operating an ISP or opening a copy shop . . . Nonetheless, we do not think it sufficiently proximate to the copying to displace the customers as the person who 'makes' the copies." The court here emphasized that ruling otherwise would blur the line between direct and indirect copyright infringement. Finally, the court considered whether Cablevision "performed" the work for the "public" in playing it back for the consumer. The answer was again no. The work had been copied by a single consumer, and was played back for that single individual at his request. The performance was not to the "public." The bottom line was that Cablevision might be indirectly liable for copyright infringement, but was not directly liable. A number of amici curae had filed briefs below (including this author), either in support of or against liability. Some warned that the lower court's holding Cablevision liable threatened the future of remote storage, the Internet, innovation, or the balance of the copyright system as a whole. But, if anything, the opinion supports the contrary view, that Cablevision's involvement with the system is significantly different from that of an ISP or from the equipment maker in the landmark Sony v. Universal ("Betamax") case that established consumers' rights to time-shift video in the first place.. Other amici warned that a failure to hold Comcast liable undermined incentives to negotiate further distribution licenses with content producers. This point, perhaps, is addressed by the Second Circuit's hints that Cablevision might have run into more trouble against a different result against a theory of contributory infringement. On the whole, the case's language is less of a victory for the "tech" side than the bare result suggests. Remote DVR has escaped the frying pan, to find itself uncomfortably close to the Grokster fire. Recall that the 2005 Supreme Court opinion extended liability for indirect infringement to those who induce infringement by others. Last week's decision leaves room for another content owner to press that theory in future litigation. Solveig Singleton is a lawyer, an adjunct with the Convergence Law Institute and an adjunct fellow with the Institute for Policy Innovation. She is the author of an amicus brief filed in this case on behalf of the Progress and Freedom Foundation. From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 20:44:01 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:44:01 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] More on Cable Case Message-ID: <49d3d209.0609c00a.79fb.73d3@mx.google.com> Here’s an article with more up-to-date information. SCOTUS may hear this case this fall. http://www.arentfox.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=legalUpdateDisp &content_id=1928 le 2/2/2009 On January 12, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States asked the Department of Justice to weigh in on a case that will decide whether a new digital home recording technology violates US copyright laws. The case is Cable News Network, Inc., et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc., et al. (No. 08-448), in which CNN and other content providers sued New York-area cable provider Cablevision and its subsidiary, claiming that Cablevision’s next-generation “Remote Storage-Digital Video Recorder” (RS-DVR) service violates the copyrights of the TV networks and film studios. The outcome of this case could change the future of home video recording, and may help define key concepts in copyright law as applied to the digital age. Cablevision’s new RS-DVR service would offer customers a new, less expensive way to record television broadcasts for later viewing. Instead of downloading a TV program through a set-top box and storing that copy in the consumer’s own computer memory, the RS-DVR copies TV programs and stores them on Cablevision’s hard drives at a central remote server. Customers then can retrieve their own unique copies of recorded programming from the remote server. Cablevision is promoting this new technology as a cheaper home recording alternative because it does not require the installation of expensive individual set-top DVR boxes in customers’ homes. The media industry worries, however, that if this cheaper RS-DVR service becomes readily available, more consumers will use the technology to skip past commercials, potentially leading to a further decrease in advertising revenues for the industry. While CNN and other content providers currently license TV programs to Cablevision, they have not licensed Cablevision to store and re-transmit those programs to users via RS-DVR. The suit arose in 2006, when CNN and other copyright owners sued Cablevision in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Cablevision directly infringes copyrights owned by the TV networks and film studios because the RS-DVR itself copies and then “performs” the copyrighted works without Cablevision’s paying additional licensing fees. Cablevision, by contrast, argues that it is not a direct infringer because it is the consumer, and not Cablevision, who orders copies of and then calls up the protected works for time-shifting. The central legal questions, and the points on which the district court and US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, were: Who is doing the copying, and does transmission of the TV programs constitute a “public” performance? The content providers argue, and the district court held in 2007, that Cablevision was doing the copying, once by making unauthorized temporary “buffer” copies of all shows, and a second time by making permanent copies on its central computer to stream to customers who request those shows. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 478 F.Supp.2d 607 (SDNY 2007). The district court further held that the RS-DVR infringes the public performance right by then transmitting those copies to consumers’ televisions upon demand, thereby making copyrighted works available to the public (even though members of the public may receive the transmissions at separate places at separate times) without the additional required licenses. In light of all that Cablevision does to design and operate the RS-DVR service, maintain exclusive physical control of and access to the central server, and supply the copyrighted content, the district court found that Cablevision, and not end-users, was responsible for the illegal copying and public performances. Accordingly, the district court enjoined Cablevision from proceeding with its RS-DVR service without obtaining the proper licenses. The Second Circuit reversed in August 2008, holding that customers, not Cablevision, do the copying, and that Cablevision therefore cannot be a direct infringer. The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008). According to Cablevision and the appeals court, the temporary “buffer” copies initially created, which exist for only 1.2 seconds before they are overwritten by new data, are not “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit [the work] to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration” and thus do not qualify as “fixed” copies under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. Regarding the permanent copies made, the Second Circuit found that the end-user, not Cablevision, decides what programs will be copied and transmitted for later viewing. The RS-DVR merely automatically reacts to customers’ orders, the court found, and thus plays no volitional role in direct copying. According to the court, Cablevision would at most be secondarily liable for infringement, but the plaintiffs did not raise the issue of contributory liability. Essentially, the court likened the RS-DVR to a user pushing the “record” button on a VCR, which the Supreme Court held in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), constitutes legal consumer time-shifting and is non-infringing fair use. Finally, on the question of whether the RS-DVR violates the copyright owners’ public performance right, the Second Circuit found that no “public” performance occurs because a copy saved by an individual subscriber can only be accessed by that single subscriber. The Second Circuit therefore found that Cablevision was not liable for direct copyright infringement. If the government advises the Supreme Court to take up this case, it likely would not come before the Court until the 2009 fall term. CNN and the other broadcast networks and film studios are currently awaiting the Court’s approval of their petition for certiorari. On certiorari, the Supreme Court would have before it several key questions fundamental to copyright law: (1) What is a “fixed” copy?; (2) What does it mean “to perform the copyrighted work publicly”?; and, in general, (3) How does the Copyright Act apply to new technologies that allow for the automated and on-demand access to and delivery of copyrighted content? With such high-stakes questions at issue, various music companies, the Screen Actors Guild, and several professional sports leagues have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the television networks. Arent Fox is monitoring this case for further developments. For more information, please contact: Anthony V. Lupo lupo.anthony at arentfox.com 202.857.6353 Loni J. Sherwin sherwin.loni at arentfox.com 202.715.8581 From Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov Wed Apr 1 21:13:57 2009 From: Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov (Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS)) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:13:57 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B5F9@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> Hi Ben, and welcome to the list! I took the bar exam in California so many years ago that I cannot help on questions of taking it with modern technology. However, a number of folks on this list do have background on the matter, and will no doubt be glad to provide you with input. Tim Ford -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ben Karpilow Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:10 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws Hello all, my name is Benjamin Karpilow. I'm new to this list. I am a 4th year law student at Empire College School of Law in Santa Rosa, California, and will be graduated this June. I have signed up to take the July California Bar Examination. I became visually impaired in 2003 and am not a proficient enough braille user to take the barr exam in this manner. Instead, I'd like to take it using Jaws. Does anyone have any experience taking the bar using Jaws. Also do the bar examiners allow test takers to use Jaws for one section, but not another, i.e., OK for essay questions but not the performance exam. Responses from those who have taken the california bar would be most helpful, but I welcome feedback from past bar takers from all jurisdictions. Regards, Ben Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/tim.ford%40cdp h.ca.gov From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 1 21:32:32 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:32:32 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <440DF2F4E2C441C19BCAFAFFC6A80572@noneeb869fea9a> References: <440DF2F4E2C441C19BCAFAFFC6A80572@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <5CD5D2E63B1B4895852205C81656FF55@spike> Actually, I agree with you and hope it does change. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:32 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > Well Chuck, > That is subject to change and if they do appeal it will be overturned and > in > my humble opinion, rightfully so. > Take care, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:28 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > The currency ruling is not going any higher as the Treasury Department > decided not to appeal it. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Greetings Rod, > I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, > however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is > going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to > books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when > a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this > argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This > machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes > with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because > blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where > someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation > certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike > the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these > books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a > book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, > when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers > them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing > copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an > exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and > then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and > completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike > as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability > because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of > copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books > would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement > that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books > nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of > bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. > No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached > conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by > allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By > asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the > shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. > Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to > Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. > The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is > required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not > share with the publisher our disability information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking > a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. > Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>>> text- to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >>> that is at best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a >>> bookshare situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon >>> loses its character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to >>> Allow Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>>> text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>>> Smyth ; Christine G. Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don >>>>> Galloway ; Donna Wood ; Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside the Authors Guild headquarters in New >>>>> York City at 31 East 32nd Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>>> able to read e- books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under >>>>> pressure from the Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>>> electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the >>>>> first time in history the opportunity to enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>>> efforts of this coalition. Although much rhetoric is made about >>>>> potential obstacles and problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>>> books available to tens of thousands of individuals who are blind >>>>> or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>>> is outrageous when a technology device shuts out people with all >>>>> kinds of disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have long dreamed of a world in which books and media >>>>> are available to us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>>> people with disabilities being left out of education, employment, >>>>> and the societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>>> information and knowledge, without delay or additional expense. >>>>> Authors and publishers surely must share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>>> cognitive disabilities that impact their ability to acquire >>>>> information with their eyes only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>>> mission of ICDRI supports the removal of barriers in electronic and >>>>> information technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly mobile society, flexibility in access to content >>>>> improves the quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>>> wants the right to be seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to >>>>> change the technology of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>>> cornerstone of education and democracy. New technologies must >>>>> serve individuals with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>>> at work on making the device's navigational features accessible to >>>>> the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>>> Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, >>>>> Digital Accessible Information System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com >> > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglob > al.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Thu Apr 2 01:57:44 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:57:44 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: <200904011643.n31GhBNf032570@mail4.srv.ualberta.ca> Message-ID: <28272888B88C4251B852CB0D23771E18@Scorpio13> I don't think this analogy is exactly right. With an MP3 recording of a book, you have a permanent recording of the entire book. With the Kindle e-book, the book is being read to you on the fly. You can even switch back and forth between reading the book on screen and reading with TTS, and if you press the read aloud button while you're reading on the screen, the speech starts with where you are in the display. If you read for a while and then hit the stop button, the screen starts displaying where the TTS left off. So there are not two separate copies of the book existing at the same time; what is changing is the way the text, which in and of itself is neither visual nor audible, is being interpreted by the device. This is just like using Jaws on a computer; Jaws doesn't create a copy of what's on the screen, it simply represents it in a different way. With the MP3, on the other hand, you have an exact recorded copy of the entire book that could exist independently from the book itself. This isn't true with the TTS, whether or not it reads character by character etc. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:33 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books I read the Doctorow article forwarded by Chris earlier, and it was helpful in clearing up some of my confusion. He seems to be saying that Amazon was not selling an audio book, but merely the capability to make your own audio book. I see the distinction, but it's difficult to see a real difference. So it would be wrong if Amazon allowed you to download an mp3 every time you downloaded the print version, but it's okay that Amazon gives you the ability to create an audio rendering with every download of a print copy. What I find odd is that the two cases might be functionally identical (i.e., you can play, stop, fast forward and rewind exactly the same in both cases), and yet one is allowed and the other is not. A screen reader such as jaws doesn't function like an mp3 rendering of the text. You can go through the text character by character, you can tell it what punctuation to speak allowed, and it's designed to translate any text on the screen into speech, not just books. Without knowing the details of the Kindle's TTS, it seems to function more like an mp3 recording of the work. Can you move through the text character by character? Can you decide what punctuation you want it to speak allowed? I really don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know you can't currently use it to read anything other than the print book, which distinguishes it from a screen reader. So now my question is, if the TTS functions identically with an mp3 recording of the book, then what difference is there between the two? It seems arbitrary to allow one but not the other. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Angie Matney Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:01 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that created a copy of a program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an additional "copy" being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a "copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently violates performance rights. Angie On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Marc: >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gma i >l.com >> >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail .. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail .. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.ne t _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3982 (20090402) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From craig.borne at dot.gov Thu Apr 2 19:32:08 2009 From: craig.borne at dot.gov (craig.borne at dot.gov) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:32:08 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: NHTSA job - up to 177K per year Message-ID: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371DCC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> ________________________________ From: Trujillo, Rose Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:30 PM To: 'mary.koehler at dc.gov'; 'James.Burke1 at va.gov'; 'evelyn.kaiser at drs.virginia.gov'; 'jmaterkowski at dors.state.md.us'; 'mleedy at montgomeryworks.com'; 'kwest-evans at rehabnetwork.org' Cc: Borne, Craig Subject: NHTSA job - up to 177K per year Importance: High Please pass to your networks for broad dissemination. ________________________________ From: Executive Resources Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:00 PM Subject: SES Vacancy Announcement - NHTSA - Director, Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection Dear Colleagues: This is to notify you of an executive leadership vacancy in my organization. We want to attract a broad pool of diverse candidates from within and outside the government who can bring strong executive skills to the position. The position is located in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Washington, DC. The incumbent will serve as the Director, Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection, under the Associate Administrator for Research & Program Development. The incumbent will provide national leadership in developing, planning, improving, implementing and evaluating traffic safety programs directed toward reducing traffic crashes and fatalities, injuries, and property damage resulting from (1) impaired driving, including improper use of alcohol and drugs, and (2) from the non-usage of safety belts, and child safety restraints. Develops, coordinates, and facilitates the execution of a coherent, integrated program of demonstration, program development, technology development, technical assistance and outreach activities aimed at improving impaired driving and occupant protection programs throughout the country. Provides technical assistance to other NHTSA offices, the States and the public in the areas related to alcohol, drugs, safety belts and child safety restraints. If you are interested and would like to be considered for this challenging position, I urge you to apply under the vacancy announcement which can be obtained from the Office of Personnel Management USAJOBS web link at: http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=80131612&AVSDM=2009%2D03%2 D26+ 00%3A03%3A01&Logo=0&pg=3&jbf574=TD*&lid=17514&FedEmp=N&sort=rv&vw=d&ss=0 &brd =3876&FedPub=Y&caller=/agency_search.asp Please feel free to share the vacancy announcement with candidates in other government agencies and/or the private sector who you know have the necessary skills for this position. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ron Medford NHTSA Acting Deputy Administrator -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NHTSA 09-21 Dir, Impaired Driving and Occup Protection (Final).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 63941 bytes Desc: NHTSA 09-21 Dir, Impaired Driving and Occup Protection (Final).rtf URL: From DFrye at nfb.org Fri Apr 3 21:07:08 2009 From: DFrye at nfb.org (DFrye at nfb.org) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:07:08 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Daniel wants you to take action on "Allow Everyone Access to E-books"! Message-ID: <20090403210704.E7E621BFADB@web10.care2.com> Hello! Daniel Frye has just read and signed the petition: Allow Everyone Access to E-books You can view this petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/3742161 Message from Daniel Frye: ----- Hi, I signed the petition "Allow Everyone Access to E-books". I'm asking you to sign this petition to help us reach our goal of 50,000 signatures. I care deeply about this cause, and I hope you will support our efforts. ----- ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.ThePetitionSite.com! ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2, the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world. www.care2.com From CDanielsen at nfb.org Sat Apr 4 01:55:44 2009 From: CDanielsen at nfb.org (Danielsen, Chris) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:55:44 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Sign the petition to allow everyone access to e-books Message-ID: Dear Fellow Federationists: As many of you know, we are engaged in a campaign to obtain access for the blind and others with print disabilities to e-books available for Amazon's new Kindle 2 e-book reader. The new reader, which Amazon is working to make fully accessible to the blind, has the ability to use text-to-speech to read these e-books aloud; but under pressure from the Authors Guild, Amazon has announced that authors and publishers will be allowed to disable the text-to-speech function. The National Federation of the blind has joined with over twenty other organizations to create the reading Rights Coalition, which has set up an on-line petition to urge the Authors Guild and Amazon to reverse course. Please read and sign the petition here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read Please note: If you are using screen access technology, the first three fields on the form to sign the petition may not be announced. They are, in order: (1) a drop-down menu from which to select your prefix (Mr., Mrs., etc.); (2) an edit field for your first name, and (3) an edit field for your last name. the rest of the fields should announce themselves as you tab to them. If you still have trouble filling out the form, please send the following information to readingrights at nfb.org and we will be happy to sign on your behalf. You will need to send us your name, address, e-mail address, and any personal comments you would like to make about this issue. Thank you so much for your participation in this critically important effort. Sincerely: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind P.S. Once you have signed the petition, please be sure to forward the link to all of the contacts in your address book that you believe will support us in this cause. From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 06:23:01 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:23:01 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <000c01c9b2ef$b2eb4220$18c1c660$@com> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000c01c9b2ef$b2eb4220$18c1c660$@com> Message-ID: <20090404062301.GA59680@yumi.bluecherry.net> Rod, I recall that one of the fun things about Copyright law is that fair use is a justification for Copyright infringement, should such claim be brought. It is not a simple exception to Copyright law. It seems to me, then, that the only way to assert fair use is to be sued for Copyright infringement and hope that your pockets are deep enough to assert the defense successfully. Is my understanding here flawed? Keep in mind, I am L0. Joseph On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:31:32PM -0400, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >I believe it was Mark who suggested that there is some validity in the >Guild's argument. Well, in a law school classroom as a hypo, in moot court >competitions, I would agree, but not in a court of law. An attorney would >have to go at length at the expense of his/her credibility to sustain a >favorable ruling on this case. > > If it were the other way around, as the Guild is containing, the use of >readers to read printed text would be prima facie copyright violations. The >absurdity goes as so far to suggest that if you read the books with your >eyes, it's OK; if you listen to it being read by a computer voice, it is a >violation. Well, this is fair use. The computer voice is not retaining the >information in a storage device for distribution. Would there be a copyright >violation also when Apple allowed their Ipods to be read with speech? > >The analyses that have gone as deep to validate the Guild's position as an >act of performance is in all due respect, beyond the point; rather, it >sounds more just like lecturing on copyright laws. > >And, I am not making an emotional argument here; I do not care about the >Kindle; I hate these text to speech voices. If one uses them exclusively, >you might eventually lose your ability to utilize the rules of grammar in >your writing, in my opinion. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of John Sheehan >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:40 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over >twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and >on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by >having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or >registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else >is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in >the first place)? > >Seems difficult to sustain their argument. >  >Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ >Xavier Society for the Blind >Office 212 473-7800 >Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching >the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - >powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. > > > > >________________________________ >From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. > >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material  to a >friend.  When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy.  In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission.  Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. > >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission.  The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice.  I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS.  And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. > >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think.  I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to.  But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest.  If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. > >Best, > >Marc > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Marc: > >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument  suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. > >Such  an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. > >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question.  You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. > >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. > >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. > >Marc > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. > >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...".  If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population.  However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts.  Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation.  I am afraid that this listserv  might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>>  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities.  This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals.  They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m.  The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology.  Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information.  As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books.  This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity.  This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities.  AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access.  New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time.  We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation.  We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense.  Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision.  Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody.  Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively.  This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said:  "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access.  ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history.  We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on.  Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language.  In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard.  By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more.  By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy.  New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them.  Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.  In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai >l.com >> > > >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yah >oo.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com From roddj12 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 4 16:03:44 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:03:44 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <20090404062301.GA59680@yumi.bluecherry.net> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000c01c9b2ef$b2eb4220$18c1c660$@com> <20090404062301.GA59680@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: Joseph: Fair use is a defense to a claim for copyright violations you are right. Exceptions within the law, when applicable, is one of the means you use to mount a defense. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 2:23 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, I recall that one of the fun things about Copyright law is that fair use is a justification for Copyright infringement, should such claim be brought. It is not a simple exception to Copyright law. It seems to me, then, that the only way to assert fair use is to be sued for Copyright infringement and hope that your pockets are deep enough to assert the defense successfully. Is my understanding here flawed? Keep in mind, I am L0. Joseph On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:31:32PM -0400, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >I believe it was Mark who suggested that there is some validity in the >Guild's argument. Well, in a law school classroom as a hypo, in moot court >competitions, I would agree, but not in a court of law. An attorney would >have to go at length at the expense of his/her credibility to sustain a >favorable ruling on this case. > > If it were the other way around, as the Guild is containing, the use of >readers to read printed text would be prima facie copyright violations. The >absurdity goes as so far to suggest that if you read the books with your >eyes, it's OK; if you listen to it being read by a computer voice, it is a >violation. Well, this is fair use. The computer voice is not retaining the >information in a storage device for distribution. Would there be a copyright >violation also when Apple allowed their Ipods to be read with speech? > >The analyses that have gone as deep to validate the Guild's position as an >act of performance is in all due respect, beyond the point; rather, it >sounds more just like lecturing on copyright laws. > >And, I am not making an emotional argument here; I do not care about the >Kindle; I hate these text to speech voices. If one uses them exclusively, >you might eventually lose your ability to utilize the rules of grammar in >your writing, in my opinion. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of John Sheehan >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:40 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over >twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and >on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by >having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or >registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else >is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in >the first place)? > >Seems difficult to sustain their argument. > >Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ >Xavier Society for the Blind >Office 212 473-7800 >Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching >the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - >powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. > > > > >________________________________ >From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. > >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. > >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. > >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. > >Best, > >Marc > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Marc: > >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. > >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. > >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. > >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. > >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. > >Marc > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. > >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai >l.com >> > > >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yah >oo.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail.com From goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 4 17:11:04 2009 From: goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net (Sarah Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:11:04 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] OT: KNFB Reader Message-ID: <001101c9b548$56ebda60$6601a8c0@computer2> Hi everyone, Sorry for the somewhat off topic post. I'm trying to get info about the KNFB reader and the cell phones it works on. Is there such a list? Or, if anyone has personal experience with it on the Nokia n82 or the 6220, can you please contact me off-list at goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net? Thanks, Sarah Clark From dandrews at visi.com Sat Apr 4 17:29:14 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:29:14 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] OT: KNFB Reader In-Reply-To: <001101c9b548$56ebda60$6601a8c0@computer2> References: <001101c9b548$56ebda60$6601a8c0@computer2> Message-ID: You named the two phones it works on already. For a more in-depth discussion you should join the reader-users list, as this is off topic for this list, http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/reader-users_nfbnet.org Dave At 12:11 PM 4/4/2009, you wrote: >Hi everyone, >Sorry for the somewhat off topic post. >I'm trying to get info about the KNFB reader and the cell phones it >works on. Is there such a list? >Or, if anyone has personal experience with it on the Nokia n82 or >the 6220, can you please contact me off-list at goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net? > >Thanks, >Sarah Clark >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com From everett at zufelt.ca Sun Apr 5 02:46:41 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:46:41 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the Authors Guild... Message-ID: Good evening, I ran across this site today. I think that it is an interesting position, one that I do not agree with, and thought someone here may wish to comment on the content of the site and two linked articles. http://accessiblepublishing.org/why-the-print-disabled-should-thank-the-authors-guild-not-picket-it/ Thanks, Everett From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sun Apr 5 04:37:02 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:37:02 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> Does anyonbe know about this site? From reviewing it it is not clear who maintains it and it sounds like it is coming from the self-perpetuating interests of publishers and copyright holders. There is no obvious contact channels and it appears to be somewhat obscure and suspect. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "E.J. Zufelt" To: Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:46 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... > Good evening, > > I ran across this site today. I think that it is an interesting > position, one that I do not agree with, and thought someone here may wish > to comment on the content of the site and two linked articles. > > http://accessiblepublishing.org/why-the-print-disabled-should-thank-the-authors-guild-not-picket-it/ > > Thanks, > Everett > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From everett at zufelt.ca Sun Apr 5 05:11:29 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 02:11:29 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> Message-ID: <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> Good evening, The following URL provides the contact info for the group that has registered the AccessiblePublishing.org domain. http://who.is/whois/accessiblepublishing.org/ HTH, Everett On 5-Apr-09, at 1:37 AM, wrote: > Does anyonbe know about this site? From reviewing it it is not clear > who maintains it and it sounds like it is coming from the self- > perpetuating interests of publishers and copyright holders. There is > no obvious contact channels and it appears to be somewhat obscure > and suspect. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- From: "E.J. Zufelt" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:46 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the > AuthorsGuild... > > >> Good evening, >> >> I ran across this site today. I think that it is an interesting >> position, one that I do not agree with, and thought someone here >> may wish to comment on the content of the site and two linked >> articles. >> >> http://accessiblepublishing.org/why-the-print-disabled-should-thank-the-authors-guild-not-picket-it/ >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.ca From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 10:51:43 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:51:43 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> Message-ID: <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Here's some of what the Center for Accessible Publishing has done in the past: http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2006/proceedings/2715.htm It sounds like this organization's livelihood is threatened by easy access to electronic books, since it exists to be THE source for college students to get books, through cooperation with publishers and protecting their bottom lines at all costs. Bookshare, RFB&D, and even NLS interfere with the organization because publishers don't receive a dime for books accessed in these ways. Joseph On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 02:11:29AM -0300, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > The following URL provides the contact info for the group that has > registered the AccessiblePublishing.org domain. > > http://who.is/whois/accessiblepublishing.org/ > > HTH, > Everett From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 6 04:44:35 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:44:35 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike><6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: it sounds a biyt paternalistic and self-serving to say the least. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... > Here's some of what the Center for Accessible Publishing has done in the > past: > > http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2006/proceedings/2715.htm > > It sounds like this organization's livelihood is threatened by easy access > to electronic books, since it exists to be THE source for college students > to get books, through cooperation with publishers and protecting their > bottom lines at all costs. Bookshare, RFB&D, and even NLS interfere with > the organization because publishers don't receive a dime for books > accessed in these ways. > > Joseph > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 02:11:29AM -0300, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> The following URL provides the contact info for the group that has >> registered the AccessiblePublishing.org domain. >> >> http://who.is/whois/accessiblepublishing.org/ >> >> HTH, >> Everett > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From b75205 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 05:15:57 2009 From: b75205 at gmail.com (James Pepper) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:15:57 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Mon Apr 6 08:32:44 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 04:32:44 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike><6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca><20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength. What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright. But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our principles. I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From angie.matney at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 11:17:12 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:17:12 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike><6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca><20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <49d9e4b4.48c3f10a.2554.ffff8e46@mx.google.com> Hi Chris, Good post. I would also like to point out that Jim Fruchterman (sp?) did indeed sign the Reading Rights Coalition Petition. Angie -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength. What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright. But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our principles. I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma il.com From angie.matney at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 11:19:30 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:19:30 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <49d9e53e.85c2f10a.1078.ffffafe3@mx.google.com> Hi James, Actually, it's the authors guild, not publishers, who are objecting. And from what I've seen, the Authors Guild is thought of as extremist by many authors. Some publishers have made blog posts condemning the Authors Guild for its actions. Angie -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma il.com From timandvickie at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 12:10:11 2009 From: timandvickie at hotmail.com (Tim Shaw) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:10:11 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <49d9e53e.85c2f10a.1078.ffffafe3@mx.google.com> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> <49d9e53e.85c2f10a.1078.ffffafe3@mx.google.com> Message-ID: what i dont understand is if they think the kindle reading the text to us is a copyright violation, isnt everything a normal screen reader reads therefore a copyright violation if its copyrighted material? > From: angie.matney at gmail.com > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:19:30 -0400 > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... > > Hi James, > > Actually, it's the authors guild, not publishers, who are objecting. And > from what I've seen, the Authors Guild is thought of as extremist by many > authors. Some publishers have made blog posts condemning the Authors Guild > for its actions. > > > Angie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of James Pepper > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe > AuthorsGuild... > > The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the > blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He > actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going > to have to deal with the copyright holders. > > Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it > and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and > created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without > receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make > it readable in this format. > > Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in > making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. > > I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll > the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, > they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right > now with sales. > > And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because > the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would > get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. > In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. > > Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had > the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to > be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in > Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to > the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 > regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. > > James Pepper > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma > il.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 From JMcCarthy at nfb.org Mon Apr 6 14:18:06 2009 From: JMcCarthy at nfb.org (McCarthy, Jim) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:18:06 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7638A85981599142811F69FBB9508B6B26D74C@FPNTEXCBE01.services.local> Though I don't question Mr. Martinengo's expertise, I would clarify a couple of facts. He wrote one report for the state of Maryland that had some impact on getting a college textbook law passed here. College students in Maryland still do not have accessible textbooks. As for Georgia, Mr. Martinengo was hired to create an accessible textbook center to aid state wide access for Georgia's college students. I am not sure how well that project is working but it seems that he has been trying to leave Georgia almost sense he arrived. The center and its procedures may be well in place though. I would also point out that most of the framework in which the access to books issue has played out requires the benevolence of the publishing community. In the k-12 context, publishers must provide electronic files for conversion into formats such as Braille, but there are no penalties if they don't do so. In other contexts, those wanting to provide accessible books request electronic copies from publishers that publishers may or may not provide. There is no way to make them provide these files at all. This means that individuals like Robert Martinengo worry about offending publishers on any level. If publishers are angered, forget about getting files for conversion. I understand that caution but think this is quite a different issue. The Kindle 2 allows users to choose between two methods of content delivery, print to a screen or text to speech. The latter opens huge doors for us because if we can actually get at this content through text to speech, whatever Amazon makes available to the nondisabled public is also made available to us so long as we can pay the book purchase price. I don't ever see the sort of models that Robert Martinengo is working with offering that potential for access. In my view, it would be best for the community if Mr. Martinengo kept his opinions to himself and continued his work. Our success on this issue will result in access to the printed word that would have been hard to imagine 20 or 30 years ago. We might be setting a new access paradigm and Mr. Martinengo's caution will only get in the way. Jim McCarthy -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength. What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright. But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our principles. I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40 aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40nf b.org From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Mon Apr 6 15:28:26 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:28:26 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Registration is Now Open for ABA National Conference on the Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities Message-ID: ________________________________ From: Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law [mailto:cmpdl at abanet.org] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:26 AM To: Nightingale, Noel Subject: Registration is Now Open for ABA National Conference on the Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities If you are having trouble reading this email you may view it as a web page, by clicking here. [http://www.abanet.org/disability/images/2009conferencelogoTRANS.png] Registration now open: register today! This groundbreaking program aims to: encourage large legal employers, particularly corporations and law firms, to sign pledges to promote diversity and inclusion within the workplace with an emphasis on hiring and retaining lawyers with disabilities; develop best practices for promoting disability diversity and inclusion; and identify legal employers and work settings that are models for the legal profession. CLE certification is pending. The Conference is part of the ABA's diversity commitment to open the legal profession to lawyers with disabilities. * Scholarships now available! * Early Bird registration rates available until June 1, 2009. Date: June 15-16, 2009 Location: Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington, DC For more information, visit the Conference's webpage at: http://www.abanet.org/disability/conferences/09conference.shtml For questions, contact Michael J. Stratton at 202-662-1571 (phone) or CMPDL at abanet.org (e-mail). Sponsored by: [http://new.abanet.org/calendar/2nd-National-Conference-on-Employment-of-Lawyers-with-Disabilities/PublishingImages/aba_logo_02_blue_300.jpg] ABA Office of the President [http://www.abanet.org/disability/images/ACCLogoTRANS.png] [http://www.abanet.org/disability/images/MCCALogoTRANS.png] ________________________________ Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA. Update your profile | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy American Bar Association | 321 N Clark | Chicago, IL 60654 | 1-800-285-2221 From plaxo at mx.plaxo.com Mon Apr 6 18:12:22 2009 From: plaxo at mx.plaxo.com (kdb enterprises) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:12:22 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] kdb enterprises added you as a connection on Plaxo Message-ID: Hi blindlaw, kdb enterprises wants to add you as a connection on Plaxo. To accept this connection request, go to: http://www.plaxo.com/invite?i=66210222&k=2060766703&l=en&src=email&et=1&est=nolevels&etv=nnic1b2&el=en Thanks! The Plaxo team More than 20 million people use Plaxo to keep in touch with the people they care about. Don't want to receive emails from Plaxo any more? Go to: http://www.plaxo.com/stop?src=email&et=1&est=nolevels&etv=nnic1b2&el=en&email=blindlaw%40nfbnet.org From pyyhkala at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 19:42:36 2009 From: pyyhkala at gmail.com (Mika Pyyhkala) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:42:36 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Association of Blind Citizens To Webcast Authors Guild Protest From NYC Tue Apr 7 12:00 P.M. EDT Message-ID: New York City (Monday April 6, 2009) The Association of Blind Citizens, ABC, will produce a live webcast of the Reading Rights Coalition, RRC, protest being held at The Authors Guild in New York City. The webcast will begin on Tuesday April 7th between 11:45 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. EDT Listeners around the world can access the web page: http://blindcitizens.org/live which has information and links for listening to the live event. It is recommended that you access this web page prior to the event so that you can install the Talking Communities conference web browser component in advance. A flash based and mp3 stream may also be available at the above web address. The Reading Rights Coalition is a joint effort made up of 27 organizations representing upwards of 15 million Americans who are blind or otherwise unable to readily use traditional print. RRC organizations and members will collectively protest the discriminatory separate but not equal stance of the Authors Guild as it relates to Ebooks and the Amazon Kindle 2 text to speech audio feature. "The water company does not charge separate rates for the use of water depending on whether the consumer is drinking it or using it to wash dishes; it simply charges for the amount of water used. By the same token, an e-book is not inherently visual or aural, and to claim that reading it either visually or aurally should cost a different price is discriminatory." http://readingrights.org The RRC web site, above, has in depth information regarding the protest, an electronic petition, and other background and resource material. . The board of directors of NFB of Massachusetts, ABC, as well as all RRC organizations collectively, encourage you to sign the online petition, attend the protest in person or virtually, and sign up on the RRC web page to receive action alerts and updates. We urge you to widely circulate this information to your email contacts, personal and professional networks, and on vehicles such as Facebook and Twitter. Contact: Mika Pyyhkala Vice President Association of Blind Citizens Google Voice/SMS: (617) 202-3497 pyyhkala at gmail.com Micro Blog: http://twitter.com/pyyhkala From stiehm.law at juno.com Mon Apr 6 22:35:52 2009 From: stiehm.law at juno.com (Patrick H. Stiehm) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:35:52 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws Message-ID: <20090406.183552.2612.1.stiehm.law@juno.com> Jack, If you couldn't us a computer for the multistate, what reasonable accommodation did the Bar Examiners make so could take that part of the test? On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 "Jack Chen" writes: > Hello Benjamin > > I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to > use > Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a > computer for > the multistate. > > jack ____________________________________________________________ Digital Photography - Click Now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmRiytkIGbTb4jBmlb9pJNbINSxOTvVhSXoVzJdPaPJrh4FmAAg/ From mikefry79 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 23:07:47 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:07:47 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <7638A85981599142811F69FBB9508B6B26D74C@FPNTEXCBE01.services.local> References: <7638A85981599142811F69FBB9508B6B26D74C@FPNTEXCBE01.services.local> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904061607m67024db0h3e3e7291bd8625fc@mail.gmail.com> I'm compelled to say that I'm very impressed and even awed by everyone's ingenious analytic insight into this issue. The level of insight and analysis is, to me, truly excellent. Chris and Jim are like geniuses. They seem to really understand the issues well. Good luck at the LA book fair. Mike On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:18 AM, McCarthy, Jim wrote: > Though I don't question Mr. Martinengo's expertise, I would clarify a > couple of facts. He wrote one report for the state of Maryland that had > some impact on getting a college textbook law passed here. College > students in Maryland still do not have accessible textbooks. As for > Georgia, Mr. Martinengo was hired to create an accessible textbook > center to aid state wide access for Georgia's college students. I am > not sure how well that project is working but it seems that he has been > trying to leave Georgia almost sense he arrived. The center and its > procedures may be well in place though. > > I would also point out that most of the framework in which the access to > books issue has played out requires the benevolence of the publishing > community. In the k-12 context, publishers must provide electronic > files for conversion into formats such as Braille, but there are no > penalties if they don't do so. In other contexts, those wanting to > provide accessible books request electronic copies from publishers that > publishers may or may not provide. There is no way to make them provide > these files at all. This means that individuals like Robert Martinengo > worry about offending publishers on any level. If publishers are > angered, forget about getting files for conversion. I understand that > caution but think this is quite a different issue. > > The Kindle 2 allows users to choose between two methods of content > delivery, print to a screen or text to speech. The latter opens huge > doors for us because if we can actually get at this content through text > to speech, whatever Amazon makes available to the nondisabled public is > also made available to us so long as we can pay the book purchase price. > I don't ever see the sort of models that Robert Martinengo is working > with offering that potential for access. In my view, it would be best > for the community if Mr. Martinengo kept his opinions to himself and > continued his work. Our success on this issue will result in access to > the printed word that would have been hard to imagine 20 or 30 years > ago. We might be setting a new access paradigm and Mr. Martinengo's > caution will only get in the way. > Jim McCarthy > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people > shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... > > James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is > important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of > strength. > What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and > publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we > are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, > have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference > between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a > format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors > Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the > positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For > example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and > processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is > violating anyone's copyright. > But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of > thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are > enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and > others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even > people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think > we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to > make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing > to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons > we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we > must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public > opinion and standing firm on our principles. > > I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case > that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. > Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great > work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so > unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that > he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at > Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their > operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to > dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying > that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this > point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of James Pepper > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should > thanktheAuthorsGuild... > > The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to > the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He > actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are > going to have to deal with the copyright holders. > > Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing > it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it > and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without > receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and > make it readable in this format. > > Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent > developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more > content. > > I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly > poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed > into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough > problems right now with sales. > > And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle > because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle > they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. > In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. > > Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always > had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there > needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing > books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily > go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to > Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or > Kindle. > > James Pepper > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40 > aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40nf > b.org > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From jackchenonline at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 12:04:36 2009 From: jackchenonline at hotmail.com (Jack Chen) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:04:36 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws References: <20090406.183552.2612.1.stiehm.law@juno.com> Message-ID: The accomodations were double time and a cassette tape of the exam. I had to provide my own tape recorder. It was tough to do the questions with long passages on tape, and I would not recommend do it that way if they didn't have to. I liken taking an exam like that on tape to a sighted person taking the bar exam using a one line teleprompter. jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick H. Stiehm" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > > Jack, > > If you couldn't us a computer for the multistate, what reasonable > accommodation did the Bar Examiners make so could take that part of the > test? > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 "Jack Chen" > writes: >> Hello Benjamin >> >> I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to >> use >> Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a >> computer for >> the multistate. >> >> jack > > ____________________________________________________________ > Digital Photography - Click Now. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmRiytkIGbTb4jBmlb9pJNbINSxOTvVhSXoVzJdPaPJrh4FmAAg/ > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jackchenonline%40hotmail.com > From lmilholland at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 13:39:51 2009 From: lmilholland at hotmail.com (Locke Milholland) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:39:51 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws In-Reply-To: References: <20090406.183552.2612.1.stiehm.law@juno.com> Message-ID: For the multi state, I used a reader of my choice, wetted by the State bar. They allowed my sister, a professional editor/writer with no legal background, with whom I have obviously had a long term relationship with. She was better than a tape recording, at reading, and at filling out the bubble sheet. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jack Chen" Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:04 AM To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Cc: Subject: Re: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > The accomodations were double time and a cassette tape of the exam. I had > to provide my own tape recorder. It was tough to do the questions with > long passages on tape, and I would not recommend do it that way if they > didn't have to. I liken taking an exam like that on tape to a sighted > person taking the bar exam using a one line teleprompter. > > jack > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick H. Stiehm" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > > >> >> Jack, >> >> If you couldn't us a computer for the multistate, what reasonable >> accommodation did the Bar Examiners make so could take that part of the >> test? >> >> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 "Jack Chen" >> writes: >>> Hello Benjamin >>> >>> I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to >>> use >>> Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a >>> computer for >>> the multistate. >>> >>> jack >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Digital Photography - Click Now. >> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmRiytkIGbTb4jBmlb9pJNbINSxOTvVhSXoVzJdPaPJrh4FmAAg/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jackchenonline%40hotmail.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotmail.com > From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Apr 7 15:25:29 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules Message-ID: Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules By Steve Vogel Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html From timandvickie at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 20:51:19 2009 From: timandvickie at hotmail.com (Tim Shaw) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:51:19 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hmmmm the government agency i just started working for does the compensatory time off rather than overtime thing to, they weretrying to explain it to me today. > From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 -0500 > Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > By Steve Vogel > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." > > View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 From khagen12 at q.com Wed Apr 8 00:27:39 2009 From: khagen12 at q.com (Kathleen Hagen) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:27:39 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules References: Message-ID: Thanks Noel. I think a lot of the federal agencies do not pay overtime or even compensatory time. Kathy Hagen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nightingale, Noel" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:25 AM Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of > interest. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > By Steve Vogel > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that > the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the > Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an > arbitrator has ruled. > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees > rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a > knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere > negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last > week. > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to > its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is > overworked. > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model > employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking > employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC > Locals, said in a statement. > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it > handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime > practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We > want to do overtime right." > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine > Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the > ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to > appeal" the decision. > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves > overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of > paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not > satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' > compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to > work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law. > "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime > violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the > union. > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an > "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more > than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up > 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its > staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of > its employees," Martin said. > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare > better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years > of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a > standstill. > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer > until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing > shortfalls." > > View Comments: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/khagen12%40q.com > From rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com Wed Apr 8 01:51:13 2009 From: rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com (ray wayne) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:51:13 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090408015113.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> Personally, I do not advise filing a grievance at a job you just started. While it may be your legal right, to paraphrase the first President Bush, it "wouldn't be prudent." Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Shaw To: Date: Tuesday, Apr 7, 2009 17:06:37 Subject: Re: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > hmmmm the government agency i just started working for does the compensatory time off rather than overtime thing to, they weretrying to explain it to me today. > > > From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov > > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 com0500 > > Subject: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > By Steve Vogel > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. > > > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. > > > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. > > > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. > > > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." > > > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. > > > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law.. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. > > > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. > > > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. > > > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." > > > > View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live��: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 > _______________________________________________ > bllaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com From timandvickie at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 03:01:36 2009 From: timandvickie at hotmail.com (Tim Shaw) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 03:01:36 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules In-Reply-To: <20090408015113.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> References: <20090408015113.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: oh i know im not gonna file a greivance about it anytime soon jsut interesing to see that anotehr agency is being called out on it. > From: rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:51:13 -0400 > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > Personally, I do not advise filing a grievance at a job you just started. While it may be your legal right, to paraphrase the first President Bush, it "wouldn't be prudent." > Ray > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Shaw > To: > Date: Tuesday, Apr 7, 2009 17:06:37 > Subject: Re: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > > > > > > hmmmm the government agency i just started working for does the compensatory time off rather than overtime thing to, they weretrying to explain it to me today. > > > > > From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov > > > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 com0500 > > > Subject: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > > > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > > > > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > > > By Steve Vogel > > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > > > > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. > > > > > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > > > > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. > > > > > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. > > > > > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. > > > > > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." > > > > > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > > > > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. > > > > > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > > > > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > > > > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law.. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. > > > > > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > > > > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > > > > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. > > > > > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. > > > > > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." > > > > > > View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > > > _______________________________________________ > > > bllaw mailing list > > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. > > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com > _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A From dandrews at visi.com Thu Apr 9 03:44:18 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:44:18 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Sign Reading Rights Coalition Petition! Message-ID: As you know, the National Federation of the Blind, NFB, is part of the Reading Rights Coalition, along with 29 (and growing) groups that support people with disabilities. The Reading Rights Coalition has been created to raise awareness about the Authors Guild and to support the 15 million print-disabled people in the US who are effected by their decision to turn off the text-to-speech function on the Kindle 2, stating that it violates copyright law. We are asking everyone to go to the petition Web site at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read , sign the petition, and forward to all of your contacts. We are trying to get 10,000 signatures and are one third of the way there. Please help! David Andrews From info at michaelhingson.com Fri Apr 10 01:55:14 2009 From: info at michaelhingson.com (Michael Hingson) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:55:14 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Message-ID: Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its related products. For more information about the reader or to place an order please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. Cordially, Mike Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com From habnkid at aol.com Fri Apr 10 02:20:47 2009 From: habnkid at aol.com (Haben Girma) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:20:47 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Deaf-Blind Lawyers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49DEACFF.800@aol.com> Greetings. My name is Haben and I am currently an undergraduate student at Lewis & Clark College. I am partially blind and partially deaf, so deaf-blind for simplicity. I am strongly considering attending law school and practicing law. What challenges should I expect as a deaf-blind law student that I wouldn't experience in college? Are there deaf-blind people practicing law in this country? Please let me know. thanks, Haben David Andrews wrote: > As you know, the National Federation of the Blind, NFB, is part of the > Reading Rights Coalition, along with 29 (and growing) groups that > support people with disabilities. The Reading Rights Coalition has > been created to raise awareness about the Authors Guild and to support > the 15 million print-disabled people in the US who are effected by > their decision to turn off the text-to-speech function on the Kindle > 2, stating that it violates copyright law. > > We are asking everyone to go to the petition Web site at > http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read > , sign the petition, and forward to all of your contacts. > > We are trying to get 10,000 signatures and are one third of the way > there. > > Please help! > > > David Andrews > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/habnkid%40aol.com > From roddj12 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 10:35:56 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:35:56 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its related products. For more information about the reader or to place an order please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. Cordially, Mike Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From AZNOR99 at aol.com Fri Apr 10 12:02:56 2009 From: AZNOR99 at aol.com (AZNOR99 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:02:56 EDT Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Message-ID: I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS software discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. Here's the page with basic information. _http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) Ronza In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its related products. For more information about the reader or to place an order please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. Cordially, Mike Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) From lmilholland at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 13:49:55 2009 From: lmilholland at hotmail.com (Locke Milholland) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:49:55 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, if so, how well does it work? Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the courtroom? So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney who is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > related products. For more information about the reader or to place > an order please visit > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > shipping. > > Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > Cordially, > > > Mike Hingson > > The Michael Hingson Group > "Speaking with Vision" > Michael Hingson, President > (415) 827-4084 > info at michaelhingson.com > www.michaelhingson.com > > > for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotmail.com > From roddj12 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 18:03:42 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:03:42 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, but the client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a mistake and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while in court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel very uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think one should always get an assistant to help out. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, if so, how well does it work? Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the courtroom? So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney who is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > related products. For more information about the reader or to place > an order please visit > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > shipping. > > Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > Cordially, > > > Mike Hingson > > The Michael Hingson Group > "Speaking with Vision" > Michael Hingson, President > (415) 827-4084 > info at michaelhingson.com > www.michaelhingson.com > > > for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm ail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Fri Apr 10 20:07:39 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:07:39 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Position Announcement: Lawyers Fostering Independence Program (fwd) Message-ID: From: Vaughan, Kate (Perkins Coie) [mailto:KVaughan at perkinscoie.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:49 AM To: Juvenile Law Section Subject: [juvenile-law-section] Position Announcement: Lawyers Fostering Independence Program Dear all, Please find attached the Position Announcement for the Lawyers Fostering Independence Program. Please feel free to forward this to anyone you think might be interested! I have copied the text into the email below also in case anyone has difficulties with the attachment. All the best, Kate Kate Vaughan | Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PHONE: 206.359.8102 FAX: 206.359.9102 E-MAIL: KVaughan at perkinscoie.com POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT Lawyers Fostering Independence Program -Managing Attorney The Center for Children & Youth Justice is seeking applicants for a six month contract position of Managing Attorney for the Lawyers Fostering Independence Program in Washington State. The mission of the LFI Program is to provide access to pro bono legal services for foster youth between 17 and 23 years old transitioning out of foster care. The Program recruits and trains pro bono attorneys to staff cases, provides a monthly free legal clinic for eligible youth, offers youth and caseworkers training on basic legal rights and empowers youth to advocate for themselves. The Managing Attorney is responsible for managing and developing the LFI program including: a. Managing the referral process and case intake b. Assigning cases to pro bono counsel and monitoring those cases. c. Providing case support to pro bono counsel. d. Engaging in outreach to youth and youth service providers to inform them of the program. e. Providing education to youth and youth service providers on legal issues to enable issue spotting for legally resolvable problems. f. Managing and staffing the once monthly legal clinic. g. Recruiting and training pro bono counsel in regular CLE sessions. h. Maintaining a team of expert attorneys to act as mentors to the pro bono counsel. i. Partnering with other organizations to provide further clinic and legal education opportunities for youth. j. Developing a plan for replicating the program statewide. k. Drafting grant applications for continued funding of the Program. The LFI Managing Attorney works under direction of the Center for Children & Youth Justice Managing Director. The position is a contract position at $35/hour, with an expected but flexible workload of 15-20 hours per week. A bus pass is provided. The term of the contract is 6 months. Minimum Qualifications * Juris Doctor; and * A minimum of 2 years of experience in juvenile justice, child welfare, education, public or court administration or other related fields; Candidates must also have: * Excellent organizational and administrative skills including the ability to lead a program independently; * A demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with a wide range of people in a professional manner; and * Working knowledge of Word for Windows, Excel, E-mail and the Internet. * Grant writing experience is a plus. Interested individuals should submit a letter of application, resume, and addresses of three professional references by April 22, 2009 via email to: Kate Vaughan Perkins Coie LLP 1201 3rd Ave Seattle, WA, 98101 kvaughan at perkinscoie.com --- You are currently subscribed to juvenile-law-section as: kambrose at u.washington.edu. If wish to unsubscribe, please contact the WSBA List Administrator NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LFI Position Announcement rev.DOC (3).pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 98724 bytes Desc: LFI Position Announcement rev.DOC (3).pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Cayac_alumni mailing list Cayac_alumni at u.washington.edu http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/cayac_alumni From dandrews at visi.com Fri Apr 10 20:10:27 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:10:27 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. Dave At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >software >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >Here's the page with basic information. >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > >Ronza > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > >Rod Alcidonis >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >related products. For more information about the reader or to place >an order please visit >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >shipping. > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > >Cordially, > > >Mike Hingson > >The Michael Hingson Group >"Speaking with Vision" >Michael Hingson, President >(415) 827-4084 >info at michaelhingson.com >www.michaelhingson.com > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com David Andrews and white cane Harry. From lmilholland at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 20:17:53 2009 From: lmilholland at hotmail.com (Locke Milholland) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:17:53 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, but > the > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > mistake > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while > in > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel > very > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think > one > should always get an assistant to help out. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, > if > > so, how well does it work? > > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the > courtroom? > > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney > who > > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. > Locke > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> an order please visit >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >> shipping. >> >> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >> >> Cordially, >> >> >> Mike Hingson >> >> The Michael Hingson Group >> "Speaking with Vision" >> Michael Hingson, President >> (415) 827-4084 >> >> info at michaelhingson.com >> www.michaelhingson.com >> >> >> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotmail.com > From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Fri Apr 10 20:40:43 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:40:43 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Univ. of Alabama Accepts its Honors Undergrads Sans LSAT, ABA Journal, April 8, 2009 Message-ID: Blindlaw listers: This article describes an interesting development and a potential way for some to avoid the pain of the LSAT and obtaining accommodations for it. Link: http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/univ._of_alabama_admits_honors_undergrads_sans_lsat Text: Univ. of Alabama Accepts its Honors Undergrads Sans LSAT Posted Apr 8, 2009 By Sarah Randag As a part of a pilot program, the University of Alabama School of Law has admitted seniors from the University of Alabama's Honors College without LSAT scores, the Tuscaloosa News reported. "The decade-old Law-UA Honors partnership, which is a select but important part of our recruitment effort, is experimenting this year with ways to keep top local students on campus for their legal education," law school spokesman Aaron Latham said in a statement. Through a public information request, the Tuscaloosa News obtained a letter that Claude Reeves, associate dean for admissions at the law school, sent to Honors College students in the fall. The letter stated that for Honors College students with a minimum 3.75 GPA, applications would not require LSAT scores, essays or recommendation letters, and that their admission decisions would be made within 24 hours. The University of Michigan announced a similar program in September that goes so far as to not consider applicants who had taken the LSAT. The MoneyLaw blog, among others, suggested at the time that one aim of the program may be to improve the school's ranking in U.S. News & World Report. "After all, the law school can hardly report LSAT scores for its 1L Wolverine Scholars if no such scores exist. Yet those same students offer the school a chance to greatly improve the mean GPA of its 1L class," according to the blog. The Tuscaloosa News also noted that the University of Illinois College of Law announced a similar program in October, as the National Law Journal detailed at the time. This program allows University of Illinois undergrads to apply during their junior year, and the LSAT is optional. From joramsey at cox.net Fri Apr 10 22:00:16 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:00:16 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping federal law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation in a non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it was obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it back on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not want me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a company have the right to open a private communication that is not on letterhead, not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has it's own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? Thanks, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, > but > the > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > mistake > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while > in > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel > very > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think > one > should always get an assistant to help out. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? > And, > if > > so, how well does it work? > > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in > the courtroom? > > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another > attorney > who > > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> an order please visit >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >> shipping. >> >> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >> >> Cordially, >> >> >> Mike Hingson >> >> The Michael Hingson Group >> "Speaking with Vision" >> Michael Hingson, President >> (415) 827-4084 >> >> info at michaelhingson.com >> www.michaelhingson.com >> >> >> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm ail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From joramsey at cox.net Fri Apr 10 22:03:52 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Blind Lawyers Association In-Reply-To: <4313AD4429551F4595A8A414A660C75F1648F52A@wdcrobe2m05.ed.gov> Message-ID: <82626880746848BCAD8B4657781AE26E@noneeb869fea9a> Hello Noel, I am getting some crazy return email messages from the blind law list and had to look for this old email message so that I can talk to you. I would like to speak with you on a legal issue and would appreciate you emailing me off list at joramsey at cox.net Thanks, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces+joramsey=cox.net at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces+joramsey=cox.net at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nightingale, Noel Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:31 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Blind Lawyers Association I suggest that to join our National Association of Blind Lawyers, which by the way is not limited to lawyers, you call our president, Scott LaBarre, at (303) 504-5979. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces+noel.nightingale=ed.gov at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces+noel.nightingale=ed.gov at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of john Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 2:09 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Blind Lawyers Association Hello All, I will be sworn to the Florida Bar on October 15th and want to know how to go about joining the National Blind Lawyer's Association. Please provide information. Take care, John _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw/joramsey%40cox.net No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1717 - Release Date: 10/9/2008 4:56 PM From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Fri Apr 10 22:23:39 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:23:39 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> What does this device do? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national > dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, > or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell > stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and > a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. > > There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works > with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. > > Dave > > > At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >>wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >>software >>discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >>N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >>Here's the page with basic information. >>_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) >> >>Ronza >> >> >>In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: >> >>Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >> >>Rod Alcidonis >>Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>Roger Williams University School of Law >>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>Bristol, RI 02809 >>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>an order please visit >>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >>The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>shipping. >> >>Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >>Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >> >>Cordially, >> >> >>Mike Hingson >> >>The Michael Hingson Group >>"Speaking with Vision" >>Michael Hingson, President >>(415) 827-4084 >>info at michaelhingson.com >>www.michaelhingson.com >> >> >>for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com >> >>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 >>easy >>steps! >>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >>hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>for blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > David Andrews and white cane Harry. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.51/2052 - Release Date: 04/10/09 06:39:00 From b.schulz at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 10 23:45:00 2009 From: b.schulz at sbcglobal.net (Bryan Schulz) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:45:00 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: hi, i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the job. Bryan Schulz The BEST Solution www.best-acts.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> but >> the >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> mistake >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >> in >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> you >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> very >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> exhibits >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >> one >> should always get an assistant to help out. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> And, >> if >> >> so, how well does it work? >> >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> the courtroom? >> >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> attorney >> who >> >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> an order please visit >>> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>> shipping. >>> >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> >>> Mike Hingson >>> >>> The Michael Hingson Group >>> "Speaking with Vision" >>> Michael Hingson, President >>> (415) 827-4084 >>> >>> info at michaelhingson.com >>> www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.net From rjtlawfirm at yahoo.com Sat Apr 11 00:01:41 2009 From: rjtlawfirm at yahoo.com (Russell J. Thomas, Jr.) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:01:41 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C44CD191FFD4AB6873E65C6D0C68D79@RJT> If you are looking for a new cellphone, be prepared for a lot of confusion. If you want a knfb reader, that works with a nokia n82 and another nokia phone. If you use talks software, that software will not work on the nokia n82; at&t no longer supports Talks, and as far as I know, the only Major carrier that uses Talks for the nokia n82 is tmobile. You need to know what software your current carrier supports, and what software you will need for your new phone; unfortunately, the carriers may not be the same; you may need to change carriers, or change your selection of phones. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:10 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. Dave At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >software >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >Here's the page with basic information. >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > >Ronza > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > >Rod Alcidonis >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >related products. For more information about the reader or to place >an order please visit >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >shipping. > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > >Cordially, > > >Mike Hingson > >The Michael Hingson Group >"Speaking with Vision" >Michael Hingson, President >(415) 827-4084 >info at michaelhingson.com >www.michaelhingson.com > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail . >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=ht tp:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.c om David Andrews and white cane Harry. _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rjtlawfirm%40yahoo .com From roddj12 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 11 00:53:28 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:53:28 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I invite folks to visit the Humanware website, and they do not need a contract to get the Mobile Speak for $195. The $295 is how much I paid when I purchased it years ago. Mobile Speak has multiple distributors, and it seems like they all set the price however they want to. I don't know much about the KNFBReader to comment. The humanware website is: www.humanware.com The info is right on the home page. This price saves a blind person $100. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. Dave At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >software >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >Here's the page with basic information. >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > >Ronza > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > >Rod Alcidonis >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >related products. For more information about the reader or to place >an order please visit >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >shipping. > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > >Cordially, > > >Mike Hingson > >The Michael Hingson Group >"Speaking with Vision" >Michael Hingson, President >(415) 827-4084 >info at michaelhingson.com >www.michaelhingson.com > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=ht tp:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.c om David Andrews and white cane Harry. _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From mikefry79 at gmail.com Sat Apr 11 01:43:39 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:43:39 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904101843p5b05cafes7ec98f2beb24e365@mail.gmail.com> That's the first time I've seen the humanware site. It's kewl, I like the talking GPS and handheld electronic magnifiers. Mike On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > Well, I invite folks to visit the Humanware website, and they do not need a > contract to get the Mobile Speak for $195. The $295 is how much I paid when > I purchased it years ago. Mobile Speak has multiple distributors, and it > seems like they all set the price however they want to. I don't know much > about the KNFBReader to comment. > > The humanware website is: > www.humanware.com > > The info is right on the home page. > This price saves a blind person $100. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of David Andrews > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national > dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, > or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell > stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and > a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. > > There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works > with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. > > Dave > > > At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: > >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I > >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS > >software > >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the > >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. > >Here's the page with basic information. > >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > > > >Ronza > > > > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > > > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > > > >Rod Alcidonis > >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >Roger Williams University School of Law > >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >Bristol, RI 02809 > >Home: (401) 824-8685 > >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On > >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > >related products. For more information about the reader or to place > >an order please visit > > > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > >shipping. > > > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > > > >Cordially, > > > > > >Mike Hingson > > > >The Michael Hingson Group > >"Speaking with Vision" > >Michael Hingson, President > >(415) 827-4084 > >info at michaelhingson.com > >www.michaelhingson.com > > > > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > > > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >_______________________________________________ > >blindlaw mailing list > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >blindlaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > > >com > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blindlaw mailing list > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >blindlaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > > > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 > easy > >steps! > >( > http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=ht > tp:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com > %2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 > >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) > >_______________________________________________ > >blindlaw mailing list > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >for blindlaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.c > om > > David Andrews and white cane Harry. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com Sat Apr 11 02:44:55 2009 From: rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com (ray wayne) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:44:55 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <20090411024455.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I suspect the same applies to private employers. So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful in the future. Ray Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "John was To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > > > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, > > but > > the > > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > > mistake > > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while > > in > > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the > > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you > > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel > > very > > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits > > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think > > one > > should always get an assistant to help out. > > > > Rod Alcidonis > > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > > Roger Williams University School of Law > > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > > Bristol, RI 02809 > > Home: (401) 824-8685 > > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? > > And, > > if > > > > so, how well does it work? > > > > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in > > the courtroom? > > > > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another > > attorney > > who > > > > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > >ar > >ar > >ar Rod Alcidonis > >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >ar Roger Williams University School of Law > >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >ar Bristol, RI 02809 > >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 > >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >ar > >ar -----Original Message----- > >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >ar > >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place > >ar an order please visit > >ar > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >ar > >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > >ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > >ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > >ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > >ar entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > >ar shipping. > >ar > >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >ar > >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > >ar > >ar > >ar Cordially, > >ar > >ar > >ar Mike Hingson > >ar > >ar The Michael Hingson Group > >ar "Speaking with Vision" > >ar Michael Hingson, President > >ar (415) 827-4084 > >ar > >ar info at michaelhingson.com > >ar www.michaelhingson.com > >ar > >ar > >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > >ar > > > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >ar _______________________________________________ > >ar bllaw mailing list > >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >ar bllaw: > >ar > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > >ar com > >ar > >ar > >ar _______________________________________________ > >ar bllaw mailing list > >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >ar bllaw: > >ar > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > > ail.com > >ar > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > bllaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > > com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > bllaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > bllaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > bllaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > bllaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 03:44:09 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:44:09 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Electronic Frontier Foundation features Kindle Protest in their newsletter Message-ID: <4AEF0B6B4487402D94C8CDC033C929D0@spike> The Electronic Frontier Foundation featured the Reading Rights Coalition protest against the Authors Guild in their newsletter. Summary and link to article below. Chuck EFF Updates * Disability Access Activists Gather to Protest Kindle DRM Hundreds of people gathered in front of the headquarters of The Authors Guild in New York City to protest the removal of text-to-speech capabilities in Amazon's new Kindle 2. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/protest-kindle-drm From dandrews at visi.com Sat Apr 11 03:54:34 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:54:34 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> References: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> Message-ID: It is a portable device for reading printed materials. Dave At 05:23 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >What does this device do? >----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > >>KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national >>dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, >>or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell >>stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and >>a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. >> >>There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works >>with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. >> >>Dave >> >> >>At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>>I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >>>wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >>>software >>>discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >>>N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >>>Here's the page with basic information. >>>_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) >>> >>>Ronza >>> >>> >>>In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>>roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: >>> >>>Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>>Rod Alcidonis >>>Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>Roger Williams University School of Law >>>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>Bristol, RI 02809 >>>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>an order please visit >>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>>The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>shipping. >>> >>>Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>>Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>>Cordially, >>> >>> >>>Mike Hingson >>> >>>The Michael Hingson Group >>>"Speaking with Vision" >>>Michael Hingson, President >>>(415) 827-4084 >>>info at michaelhingson.com >>>www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>>for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>com >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com >>> >>>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >>>steps! >>>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >>> >>hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>for blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com >> >>David Andrews and white cane Harry. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>for blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.51/2052 - Release Date: >04/10/09 06:39:00 > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com > > From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 04:57:10 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:57:10 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Several attorneys that I know have a paralegal with them in court to assist with them with document control and whatever else is needed. These attorneys are sighted. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Alcidonis" To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, but the client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a mistake and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while in court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel very uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think one should always get an assistant to help out. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, if so, how well does it work? Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the courtroom? So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney who is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > related products. For more information about the reader or to place > an order please visit > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > shipping. > > Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > Cordially, > > > Mike Hingson > > The Michael Hingson Group > "Speaking with Vision" > Michael Hingson, President > (415) 827-4084 > info at michaelhingson.com > www.michaelhingson.com > > > for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm ail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 06:09:13 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:09:13 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to an outgoing mailbox? Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> but >> the >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> mistake >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >> in >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> you >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> very >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> exhibits >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >> one >> should always get an assistant to help out. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> And, >> if >> >> so, how well does it work? >> >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> the courtroom? >> >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> attorney >> who >> >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> an order please visit >>> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>> shipping. >>> >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> >>> Mike Hingson >>> >>> The Michael Hingson Group >>> "Speaking with Vision" >>> Michael Hingson, President >>> (415) 827-4084 >>> >>> info at michaelhingson.com >>> www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sat Apr 11 13:08:03 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:08:03 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> Message-ID: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your company. Joseph On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: > I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for > a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their > employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to > an outgoing mailbox? > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >> federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> but >>> the >>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> mistake >>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>> in >>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >>> criticize you >>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> very >>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> exhibits >>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>> one >>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> And, >>> if >>> >>> so, how well does it work? >>> >>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>> the courtroom? >>> >>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> attorney >>> who >>> >>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>> an order please visit >>>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>> shipping. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hingson >>>> >>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>> >>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>> >>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com From joramsey at cox.net Sat Apr 11 14:13:15 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:15 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <0FEA88E79A38459B884B02ACD97FF7EF@noneeb869fea9a> Hello Joseph, It is actually nothing that glamorous (smile). John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:08 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your company. Joseph On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: > I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work > for > a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their > employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to > an outgoing mailbox? > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >> overlapping federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone >> and it was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just >> placing it back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she >> did not want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the >> mail has it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >> raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family >> law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> but the >>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> mistake >>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>> in >>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >>> criticize you >>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> very >>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> exhibits >>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>> one >>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> And, if >>> >>> so, how well does it work? >>> >>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >>> in the courtroom? >>> >>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> attorney who >>> >>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >>>> Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the >>>> Reader and its related products. For more information about the >>>> reader or to place an order please visit >>>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >> n.com >>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >>>> the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >>>> an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >>>> software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >>>> cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader >>>> option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. >>>> Information about the loan is available on the web site given >>>> above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hingson >>>> >>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>> >>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>> >>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >> on.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >> cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40 >> sbcglobal.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjose > ph%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 14:17:19 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:17:19 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <20090411024455.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <20090411024455.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, unless there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your manager? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray wayne" To: Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my > employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) > That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable > expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers > and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I > suspect the same applies to private employers. > So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful > in the future. > Ray Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John was > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 > Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > >> >> >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >> federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >> I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >> I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >> it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >> it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >> not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >> has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >> the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> > but >> > the >> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> > mistake >> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >> > while >> > in >> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >> > the >> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> > you >> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> > very >> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> > exhibits >> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >> > think >> > one >> > should always get an assistant to help out. >> > >> > Rod Alcidonis >> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> > Roger Williams University School of Law >> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> > Bristol, RI 02809 >> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> > And, >> > if >> > >> > so, how well does it work? >> > >> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> > the courtroom? >> > >> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> > attorney >> > who >> > >> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Rod Alcidonis >> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >ar >> >ar -----Original Message----- >> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >> >) >> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >ar >> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> >ar an order please visit >> >ar >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >ar >> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >> >ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >> >ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >> >ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >> >ar entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >> >ar shipping. >> >ar >> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >ar >> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Cordially, >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Mike Hingson >> >ar >> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >> >ar Michael Hingson, President >> >ar (415) 827-4084 >> >ar >> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> >ar >> > >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> >ar bllaw: >> >ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> >ar com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> >ar bllaw: >> >ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> > ail.com >> >ar >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> > com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From joramsey at cox.net Sat Apr 11 14:49:37 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:49:37 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> Hi Steve, No prior issues and I thought that I got along with her. I have no idea what if anything will happen and don't want to seem litigious but appropriate boundaries have to be established in the workplace. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:17 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, unless there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your manager? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray wayne" To: Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my > employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) > That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable > expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers > and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I > suspect the same applies to private employers. > So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful > in the future. > Ray Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John was > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 > Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > >> >> >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >> overlapping federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >> I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >> I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >> it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >> it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >> not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >> has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >> raising >> the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> > but the >> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> > mistake >> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >> > while >> > in >> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >> > the >> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> > you >> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> > very >> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> > exhibits >> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >> > think >> > one >> > should always get an assistant to help out. >> > >> > Rod Alcidonis >> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> > Roger Williams University School of Law >> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> > Bristol, RI 02809 >> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> > [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> > And, if >> > >> > so, how well does it work? >> > >> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >> > in the courtroom? >> > >> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> > attorney who >> > >> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Rod Alcidonis >> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >ar >> >ar -----Original Message----- >> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >> >) >> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >ar >> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> >ar an order please visit >> >ar >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >> n.com >> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >ar >> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >> >the ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >> >an ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >> >software and ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >> >cost $295.00. The ar entire package including the screen reader >> >option cost $1,665.00 plus ar shipping. ar >> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >ar >> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Cordially, >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Mike Hingson >> >ar >> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >> >ar Michael Hingson, President >> >ar (415) 827-4084 >> >ar >> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> >ar >> > >> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >> on.com >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> >ar com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> > ail.com >> >ar >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> > com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> ail.com >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >> cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.c om > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40in sightbb.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 16:21:12 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:21:12 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a><1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <3EEA1241BE264B69961A3FD9B8127A47@spike> I guess my union background shows as I didn't think of it from that angle as it is a bit far-fetched. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion > dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. > It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's > serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your > company. > > Joseph > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for >> a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their >> employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to >> an outgoing mailbox? >> Chuck >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM >> Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question >> >> >>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >>> federal >>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>> corporation >>> in a >>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >>> I >>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >>> I >>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >>> it >>> was >>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >>> it >>> back >>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >>> not >>> want >>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>> company >>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>> letterhead, >>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >>> has >>> it's >>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>> Thanks, >>> John >>> >>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>> >>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>> >>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> >>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >>> the >>> question. I know what I go into court with. >>> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >>> anyone. >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>>> but >>>> the >>>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>>> mistake >>>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >>>> while >>>> in >>>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >>>> the >>>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>>> you >>>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>>> very >>>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>>> exhibits >>>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >>>> think >>>> one >>>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>>> And, >>>> if >>>> >>>> so, how well does it work? >>>> >>>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>>> the courtroom? >>>> >>>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>>> attorney >>>> who >>>> >>>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >>>>> ) >>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>>> an order please visit >>>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>>> >>>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>>> shipping. >>>>> >>>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>>> >>>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cordially, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hingson >>>>> >>>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>>> >>>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>>> ail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 18:01:21 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:01:21 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> References: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: It would seem to me she would have stopped by to see you and explained policies concerning using company mailboxes. I would think, as long as your relationship was satisfactory, she would have given you the opportunity to explain what actually occurred. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "John" To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > Hi Steve, > No prior issues and I thought that I got along with her. I have no idea > what > if anything will happen and don't want to seem litigious but appropriate > boundaries have to be established in the workplace. > Take care, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:17 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > > It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, > unless > there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had > other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your > manager? > Steve > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ray wayne" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my >> employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) >> That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable >> expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers >> and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I >> suspect the same applies to private employers. >> So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be >> careful > >> in the future. >> Ray Wayne >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John was >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 >> Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question >> >>> >>> >>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >>> overlapping federal >>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>> corporation >>> in a >>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and >>> today > >>> I >>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >>> I >>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >>> it >>> was >>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >>> it >>> back >>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >>> not >>> want >>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>> company >>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>> letterhead, >>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >>> has >>> it's >>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>> Thanks, >>> John >>> >>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>> >>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>> >>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> >>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >>> raising >>> the >>> question. I know what I go into court with. >>> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >>> anyone. >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> > but the >>> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> > mistake >>> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >>> > while >>> > in >>> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >>> > the >>> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>> > you >>> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> > very >>> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> > exhibits >>> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >>> > think >>> > one >>> > should always get an assistant to help out. >>> > >>> > Rod Alcidonis >>> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> > Roger Williams University School of Law >>> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> > Bristol, RI 02809 >>> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> > [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> > >>> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> > And, if >>> > >>> > so, how well does it work? >>> > >>> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >>> > in the courtroom? >>> > >>> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> > attorney who >>> > >>> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------- >>> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> > >>> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar Rod Alcidonis >>> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >>> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >>> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >ar >>> >ar -----Original Message----- >>> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >>> >) >>> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >ar >>> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >>> >Federation >>> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> >ar an order please visit >>> >ar >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >>> n.com >>> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >ar >>> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >>> >the ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >>> >an ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >>> >software and ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >>> >cost $295.00. The ar entire package including the screen reader >>> >option cost $1,665.00 plus ar shipping. ar >>> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >ar >>> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar Cordially, >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar Mike Hingson >>> >ar >>> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >>> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >>> >ar Michael Hingson, President >>> >ar (415) 827-4084 >>> >ar >>> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >>> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >ar >>> > >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >>> on.com >>> >ar _______________________________________________ >>> >ar bllaw mailing list >>> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> >for ar bllaw: ar >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>> >ar com >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar _______________________________________________ >>> >ar bllaw mailing list >>> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> >for ar bllaw: ar >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>> > ail.com >>> >ar >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > bllaw mailing list >>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> > for >>> > bllaw: >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>> > com >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > bllaw mailing list >>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> > for >>> > bllaw: >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>> ail.com >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bllaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> bllaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >>> cox.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bllaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> bllaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.c > om >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40in > sightbb.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 > 10:51:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 18:02:50 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:02:50 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> Message-ID: <8790BB8C738A434C883E5595CB43EC5F@StevePC> How well does it work and what are its limitations? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > It is a portable device for reading printed materials. > > Dave > > At 05:23 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>What does this device do? >>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" >>To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" >>Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >>>KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national >>>dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, >>>or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell >>>stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and >>>a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. >>> >>>There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works >>>with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. >>> >>>Dave >>> >>> >>>At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>>>I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >>>>wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >>>>software >>>>discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is >>>>the >>>>N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >>>>Here's the page with basic information. >>>>_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) >>>> >>>>Ronza >>>> >>>> >>>>In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>>>roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: >>>> >>>>Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>>Rod Alcidonis >>>>Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>On >>>>Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>>of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>>related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>>an order please visit >>>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>>The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>>KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>>optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>>phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>>entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>>shipping. >>>> >>>>Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>>purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>>given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>>Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>>Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>>Mike Hingson >>>> >>>>The Michael Hingson Group >>>>"Speaking with Vision" >>>>Michael Hingson, President >>>>(415) 827-4084 >>>>info at michaelhingson.com >>>>www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>>for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blindlaw mailing list >>>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>blindlaw: >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>com >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blindlaw mailing list >>>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>blindlaw: >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com >>>> >>>>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 >>>>easy >>>>steps! >>>>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >>>> >>hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blindlaw mailing list >>>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>for blindlaw: >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com >>> >>>David Andrews and white cane Harry. >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>for blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.51/2052 - Release Date: >>04/10/09 06:39:00 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>for blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com >> >> >>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >>signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ >> >>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >> >>http://www.eset.com >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 19:15:57 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:15:57 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <3EEA1241BE264B69961A3FD9B8127A47@spike> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> <3EEA1241BE264B69961A3FD9B8127A47@spike> Message-ID: Union people and collective bargaining agreements have absolutely no flexibility in them. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question >I guess my union background shows as I didn't think of it from that angle >as > it is a bit far-fetched. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T. Joseph Carter" > To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion >> dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. >> It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's >> serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your >> company. >> >> Joseph >> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for >>> a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their >>> employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to >>> an outgoing mailbox? >>> Chuck >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question >>> >>> >>>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >>>> federal >>>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>>> corporation >>>> in a >>>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and >>>> today >>>> I >>>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >>>> I >>>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >>>> it >>>> was >>>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >>>> it >>>> back >>>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >>>> not >>>> want >>>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>>> company >>>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>>> letterhead, >>>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >>>> has >>>> it's >>>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>>> Thanks, >>>> John >>>> >>>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>>> >>>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>>> >>>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On >>>> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >>>> the >>>> question. I know what I go into court with. >>>> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >>>> anyone. >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>>>> but >>>>> the >>>>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>>>> mistake >>>>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >>>>> while >>>>> in >>>>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >>>>> the >>>>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>>>> you >>>>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>>>> very >>>>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>>>> exhibits >>>>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >>>>> think >>>>> one >>>>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>>>> >>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>>>> And, >>>>> if >>>>> >>>>> so, how well does it work? >>>>> >>>>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>>>> the courtroom? >>>>> >>>>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>>>> attorney >>>>> who >>>>> >>>>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>>> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >>>>>> ) >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>>>> an order please visit >>>>>> >>>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>>>> >>>>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>>>> shipping. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>>>> >>>>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cordially, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Hingson >>>>>> >>>>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>>>> >>>>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>>> blindlaw: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>>> com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>>> blindlaw: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>>>> ail.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>>> ail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 08:03:08 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:03:08 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <0FEA88E79A38459B884B02ACD97FF7EF@noneeb869fea9a> References: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> <0FEA88E79A38459B884B02ACD97FF7EF@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <20090412080308.GE56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Nope, but it is lucrative. Not to the "spy", but to the employer of said person. But the job has other perks! If you're lucky, you'll be given state of the art gadgets--for example, a pen that secretly has the ability to write in ink on a piece of paper. My point was that a little healthy paranoia is a good idea in some industries. The point is to maintain security without making your employees feel like Big Brother is watching. As to your boss reading personal mail, I am fairly sure that it is quite illegal to tamper with US mail once it ends up in a mailbox. What I don't know is whether or not it ever got there, as far as the law is concerned. Joseph On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:13:15AM -0400, John wrote: >Hello Joseph, >It is actually nothing that glamorous (smile). >John > >John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > >Gainesville, FL 32609 > >Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter >Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:08 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- >billion dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they >steal yours. It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out >to be, but it's serious enough that a single employee can seriously >harm or destroy your company. > >Joseph > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work >> for >> a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their >> employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to >> an outgoing mailbox? >> Chuck >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM >> Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question >> >> >>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >>> overlapping federal >>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>> corporation in a >>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >I >>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone >>> and it was >>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just >>> placing it back >>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she >>> did not want >>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>> company >>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>> letterhead, >>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the >>> mail has it's >>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>> Thanks, >>> John >>> >>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>> >>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>> >>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> >>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >>> raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family >>> law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>>> but the >>>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>>> mistake >>>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>>> in >>>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >>>> criticize you >>>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>>> very >>>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>>> exhibits >>>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>>> one >>>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>>> And, if >>>> >>>> so, how well does it work? >>>> >>>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >>>> in the courtroom? >>>> >>>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>>> attorney who >>>> >>>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >>>>> Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the >>>>> Reader and its related products. For more information about the >>>>> reader or to place an order please visit >>>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >>> n.com >>>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>>> >>>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >>>>> the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >>>>> an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >>>>> software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >>>>> cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader >>>>> option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. >>>>> >>>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. >>>>> Information about the loan is available on the web site given >>>>> above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>>> >>>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cordially, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hingson >>>>> >>>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>>> >>>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >>> on.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>>> ail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >>> cox.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40 >>> sbcglobal.net >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjose >> ph%40gmail.com > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com From mikefry79 at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 16:57:31 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904120957q9dc9fsadf2ba859326f45e@mail.gmail.com> It sucks that your boss is a jerk. On another note, happy Easter everyone. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bryan Schulz wrote: > hi, > > i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the > job. > > Bryan Schulz > The BEST Solution > www.best-acts.com > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >> federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> but >>> the >>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> mistake >>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>> in >>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>> you >>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> very >>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> exhibits >>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>> one >>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> And, >>> if >>> >>> so, how well does it work? >>> >>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>> the courtroom? >>> >>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> attorney >>> who >>> >>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On >>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>> an order please visit >>>> >>>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>> shipping. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hingson >>>> >>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>> >>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> . >> >>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> >>> ail.com >>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> . >> >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From info at michaelhingson.com Tue Apr 14 01:05:54 2009 From: info at michaelhingson.com (Michael Hingson) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:05:54 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] blindlaw questions Message-ID: From Michael Hingson: Dave, Would you please post the following? I wish to provide some clarification to my post of last week as well as some answers to questions about costs and function. First, There has been some question about the cost of MobileSpeak. The best answer I can give is that HumanWare, I am sure, has negotiated a price for MobileSpeak. It may well be that they are able to sell the product for $195 while other organizations which do not sell as much of the product must sell it for a higher cost. On the other hand when you purchase the product from HumanWare you must install, activate, and configure it. When we configure KnfbReader Mobile products with a screen reader all parts of the product, including the screen reader, are installed, activated, and configured. It is up to each of you whether or not you wish to buy all the pieces of the Reader and put them together or pay someone to do so. This technology, especially aspects of the cell phones, are obscure and confusing. You also must take into account support for the product. Most dealers will only support what they sell. Purchasing MobileSpeak from HumanWare may be fine so long as they give you support should you not know anything about installing and activating it. I only wish to point out that many issues must be considered when buying each part of the Reader package separately and then merging them altogether. Someone asked what the Reader is. The KnfbReader Mobile is a package consisting of software, and a cell phone which together make up a system which will read most print aloud. Many of us use the Reader daily to read anything from mail to books and magazines to printed information on items around the house. If anyone wishes more information about the KnfbReader Mobile please feel free to call me at (415) 827-4084 or please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com . Thanks for reading. I hope to be of service to you. Best, Michael Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com http://michaelhingson.com/images/knfbReader-michael_hingson.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7293d9.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3059 bytes Desc: not available URL: From craig.borne at dot.gov Mon Apr 13 13:10:20 2009 From: craig.borne at dot.gov (craig.borne at dot.gov) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:10:20 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Hello all, Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free legal advice? I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which comments are given. Thank you, Craig Craig Borne, Esq. NHTSA/DOT (202) 493-0627 craig.borne at dot.gov -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Schulz Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:45 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question hi, i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the job. Bryan Schulz The BEST Solution www.best-acts.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> but >> the >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> mistake >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >> in >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> you >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> very >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> exhibits >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >> one >> should always get an assistant to help out. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> And, >> if >> >> so, how well does it work? >> >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> the courtroom? >> >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> attorney >> who >> >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> an order please visit >>> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.c om >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>> shipping. >>> >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> >>> Mike Hingson >>> >>> The Michael Hingson Group >>> "Speaking with Vision" >>> Michael Hingson, President >>> (415) 827-4084 >>> >>> info at michaelhingson.com >>> www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson. com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm ail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm ail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox .net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbc global.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 dot.gov From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Mon Apr 13 22:42:19 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:42:19 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Copyright in the Age of YouTube, ABA Journal, February 2009 Message-ID: This article from the ABA reminds me of our recent discussion on this list about the rights to obtain material in text-to-speech format. Link: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/copyright_in_the_age_of_youtube/ Text: Copyright in the Age of YouTube As user-generated sites flourish, copyright law struggles to keep up February 2009 Issue By Steven Seidenberg Holden Lenz had just learned to walk when—on Feb. 7, 2007—he stepped into the front lines of the copyright wars. Thirteen-month-old Holden was tottering around his family’s home in rural Penn­sylvania, clutching his walker and looking cute. The toddler heard the Prince song Let’s Go Crazy coming from a CD player in the kit­chen, so he stopped walking and began bouncing up and down to the music. Then he made a face and resumed pushing his walker across the kitchen floor. His mother, Stephanie Lenz, recorded these events in a 30-second home movie, which she posted on You­Tube the following day under the title Let’s Go Crazy #1. She had put similar clips online before so faraway family and friends could see her kids. This clip, however, drew the ire of the world’s largest music company—Universal Music Group—whose international operations garnered more than $6.9 billion in 2007. On June 4, 2007, Universal sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copy­right Act, asserting that the home movie of Holden infringed the multinational’s copyrights in Prince’s song. YouTube removed the video from its website. When Lenz learned what had happened, she did something unusual. Unlike the vast majority of people whose postings are the subject of DMCA takedown notices, Lenz consulted an attorney. She then sent a counternotice, asserting that her video, which contained only 20 seconds of a dimly audible song, was a protected fair use of Let’s Go Crazy and did not infringe Universal’s copyrights. YouTube ordinarily responds to counternotifications fairly quickly, reposting the videos in a day or two. Not this time. Weeks went by and nothing happened. On July 24, a month after she had filed the counternotification, Lenz upped the ante. She sued Universal for misrepresentation in its takedown notice. “I decided my First Amendment rights were being violated, and I decided to hit them where it hurt—let them know they couldn’t do this to people anymore.” Two weeks after the suit was filed, YouTube put the video back online. And one year later, on Aug. 20, 2008, Lenz won a precedent-setting battle against Universal. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern Dis­trict of California held that the DMCA requires copyright owners to consider fair use before sending a take­down notice. If a copyright owner sends a takedown notice without first making a good-faith evaluation of whether the allegedly infringing work is covered by fair use, the owner could be liable for damages, according to Fogel. The judge denied UMG’s motion to dismiss the suit, enabling Lenz to attempt to prove in an upcoming trial that UMG filed the takedown notice in bad faith. The ruling is part of a lar­g­er legal struggle over who should bear the burdens of stopping online copyright infringement. Movie companies, record companies and many other copyright owners fear that—because committing copyright infringement online is so fast and easy, and because the huge number of online infringements is skyrocketing—it is impracticable for copyright owners to stop online infringements by suing all the individual wrongdoers. So content owners are seeking alternatives. They are trying to automate the process of removing allegedly infringing material. They are asking the courts to impose liability on YouTube and other online companies if these companies fail to vigorously police the material posted by their users. And the content owners are lobbying Congress for tougher laws against infringement. Internet and technology companies fiercely oppose these changes, fearing they would impair innovation and drive many of them out of business. Civil rights organizations also oppose these changes, arguing they would damage an important new avenue of public communication. “Companies that depend on user-generated content —and MySpace, Facebook, AOL, virtually every major Internet company incorporates user-generated content —they create a new and more vibrant public sphere,” says Corynne McSherry, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, who is representing Lenz in her lawsuit against UMG. “We have a whole new set of channels of communication. It’s good for con­sumers and good for citizens.” SAFE-HARBOR BATTLE The battle over online copyright infringement was supposed to be resolved a decade ago. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act established a carefully calibrated compromise between the rights of copyright own­ers and those of online companies. Among other things, section 512 of the DMCA es­tablished a safe harbor for online service providers, man­dating they would not be liable for storing or trans­mit­­ting infringing material at their users’ direction, provided certain conditions were met. This safe harbor applies only if the online company does not know or should not reasonably have known about the infringement; and once the online company learns about the infringement, it must act “expeditiously” to remove the infringing material. Section 512 also created a notice-and-takedown regime. Copyright owners have a quick and easy way to notify online companies about infringing works. Online companies must respond to such takedown notices by expeditiously removing the allegedly infringing items from their Internet site or service. If an online company fails to do this, it loses its safe-harbor protection. Users of online ser­vices receive some protection, too. When an online company removes allegedly infringing material that was posted by a user, that company is statutorily required to notify the user of what happened and why. The individual has a right to send a counternotification stating he or she has a “good-faith belief” the material is not infringing. Once this counternotification is received, the online company must put the disputed material back online within 14 business days, unless the company receives notice from the copyright owner that it has filed an infringement suit against the person who posted the material. SITES FLOURISHING Section 512 has been, in some ways, an astounding success. Its statutory safe harbor has enabled many new online businesses to flower. YouTube, MySpace, Flickr and many other user-generated content sites have become household names with millions of users communicating and sharing information and other types of content. Such online communication would be impossible without sec­tion 512’s safe harbor, many experts assert. The UGC sites depend on this to protect them from copyright liability. “Without this safe harbor, no one could provide the services that You­Tube and Flickr provide,” says Joseph Gratz, a San Francisco-based attorney and past chair of the ABA’s Section of Intellectual Property Law’s Special Committee on the Digital Millennium Copy­right Act. “There would simply be too much risk.” Congress, however, enacted section 512 at a time when technology was simpler. “The DMCA ... was written when people were worried about bulletin board and Usenet operators who ran services for the uploading and downloading of content,” says New York City attorney Jeffrey Neuburger. The law’s drafters had no inkling that UGC sites would develop, much less that these sites would become wildly popular. Section 512’s system doesn’t fit these new sites well, according to some experts. “The system is working on a scale that Congress never intended, with millions of postings every day,” says Paul Goldstein, who teaches copyright law at Stanford Law School. Policing these postings and sending out takedown notices has become a time-consuming and costly process for copyright owners. “It puts a burden on small companies and individual authors that I don’t think Congress considered when it enacted these provisions,” Goldstein says. FLURRY OF TAKEDOWN NOTICES Copyright owners have tried mightily to work with­in the existing law. They have sent out hundreds of thousands of section 512 takedown notices. That’s far too many notices, according to some attorneys, who assert that copyright owners often do not bother to check whether an online item is truly infringing. Automated programs search for titles of copyrighted works and fragments of copyrighted songs or videos. If anything is found, the work is hit with a takedown notice—frequently without any real examination of the allegedly infringing item. This might be why Universal ordered YouTube to remove the homemade video of little Holden dancing in his family’s kitchen. If an attorney for Uni­versal had examined the video, says Gratz, counsel would have recognized that the snippet of a Prince song in the video was almost certainly not infringement, but fair use. The automated nature of many takedown notices also may explain why the International Olympic Committee ordered YouTube last August to take down a video titled Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony. The title certainly suggested the video contained material copyrighted by the IOC, but a cursory look at the video would have demonstrated otherwise. The video, made by Students for a Free Tibet, showed a protest outside the Chinese Consul­ate in New York City. (After the takedown notice was made public, the IOC was hit with a firestorm of bad publicity and withdrew its request.) These are not isolated examples of copyright owners being overly vigilant. “There’s no question that takedown notices get overused,” says Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at the University of Mich­igan Law School. “We’ve seen instance after instance where videos on YouTube, perfectly legal and perfectly fine ... get taken down,” McSherry says. “Copyright owners are not doing due diligence on these takedown requests.” Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. could change that. The court held, in a ruling of first impression, that because the copyright act protects the fair use of copyrighted works, section 512(c) “requires a copyright owner to consider the fair-use doctrine in formulating a good-faith belief that ‘use of the material ... is not authorized by ... the law.’ ” Issuing a takedown notice “without proper consideration of the fair-use doctrine” exposes the copyright owner to liability for misrepresentation under section 512(f) of the DMCA, the court concluded. “Lenz is saying something modest, but important,” Gratz says. “Copyright owners must think about fair use and make up their minds about whether it protects an online clip. They can’t just assume any video with the name of their song in the title is infringing.” The court stated its decision was needed “to prevent the abuse of takedown notices,” and the resulting burden on copyright owners was relatively light. A copyright owner does not need to correctly decide whether a video is protected by fair use. Section 512 merely requires the owner to subjectively believe, in good faith, that the item in question is not so protected, Judge Fogel held. Nevertheless, the ruling may pose serious problems for copyright owners, forcing many to spend significant time and money on legal analyses of large numbers of potentially infringing online items. “What the court is asking doesn’t sound like much, but ... determining whether something is a fair use can take a goodly amount of time,” Goldstein says. “When you pick a doctrine as protean and indeterminate as fair use, asking people to make snap judgments often isn’t feasible.” A GAME OF WHAC-A-MOLE Even without the burden of doing fair-use analyses, copyright owners are having a tough time policing UGC sites; the volume of posts is overwhelming. Ten hours of video content are put online every minute of every day—more than 250,000 clips per day—and that is just on YouTube. Given the huge amount of content posted to UGC sites, it is not surprising that copyright owners are trying to automate the process of identifying infringing content and sending out takedown notices. However, sending takedown notices to some UGC sites is often akin to playing a frustrating game of Whac-­a-Mole. “Once these things are legitimately taken down, often other users will put the same or very similar material up on the same website within minutes,” says Kim Jessum, an attorney in Philadelphia and chair of the ABA’s Special Committee on Online Copyright Issues. Some copyright owners have tried to sidestep these difficulties by attacking the UGC sites themselves—not the vast number of infringing clips nor the throngs of people who post this infringing content. In 2007 Viacom sued YouTube under this theory, claiming that some 150,000 unauthorized clips of Via­com programs were posted to the video website, and that YouTube didn’t do enough to stop this massive infringement. Claiming YouTube is liable for direct and sec­ondary copyright infringement, Viacom is seeking a minimum of $1 billion in damages plus an injunction requiring YouTube to employ technological measures to stop or limit future infringements. YouTube (and its corporate parent, Google) counters that the UGC site is protected from liability by the DMCA’s safe harbor. Some experts see the ongoing legal battle as a clear attempt by Viacom to undermine section 512. “It is a direct attack on the viability of the safe-harbor rule of the DMCA,” says Lawrence Iser, an IP attorney in Santa Monica, Calif. If Viacom succeeds, lots of UGC sites and other online service providers will be driven out of business, according to many experts. And the users of these sites will suffer, too, losing an important new way of communicating with one another. “There’s been a great flowering of user-generated content,” Gratz says. “It is enabling people to use the Internet, indeed the media, in ways they have never been able to do before. ... And their ability to do that depends on section 512 meaning what it says.” INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY Although Viacom international Inc. v. YouTube inc. has garnered massive media attention, the lesser-known Io Group Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc. raised the same issues of intermediary liability for copyright infringement and, ultimately, reaffirms the DMCA’s safe-harbor protection for online companies. Io Group makes and sells adult entertainment products, including movies. Veoh Networks, like YouTube, allows users to upload and view videos online. Io alleged that clips from some of its movies were uploaded and viewed on Veoh, and that Veoh should be held liable for direct and secondary copyright infringement. Veoh argued that it was protected from liability by section 512(c). Io noted that section 512(c)’s safe harbor applies only to infringing material that third parties have put onto a defendant’s system. In this case, Veoh took the clips uploaded by users, automatically copied them into a different format (suitable for online viewing), and put these infringing copies onto its website. Thus, Io argued, section 512(c) did not immunize Veoh against liability for the copies that the company had itself made and posted on its site. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California disagreed. Because Veoh had no volitional control over its automatic copying and posting of uploaded material, the court said, the company could not be held responsible for these actions. Veoh’s users, not Veoh, were the ones responsible for copying the clips and putting them onto Veoh’s website. Thus, section 512(c) protected Veoh against copyright liability for those clips. Io offered another argument: A service provider loses the protection of the section 512(c) safe harbor if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, and receives a financial benefit directly attributable to such activity. Io claimed that Veoh had the right and the ability to control the infringing activity on its website, and that Veoh profited from its users posting and viewing the infringing clips. The court rejected this argument, too. Judge Howard R. Lloyd held that although Veoh had the ability to control its own system, it did not have the ability to control the infringing activity. He concluded that the DMCA protects online companies like Veoh that work in good faith to limit copyright infringements committed by their users. Many online companies have cheered Io. But it is unclear how much this will help YouTube and other service providers because Io provides no clear guidelines for determining when copyright infringements are beyond a service provider’s control. How hard must a service provider work to stop infringements, in order to prove the provider is unable to control any infringing material that is put on its service by users? On one hand, Io appears to indicate that a good-faith effort to stop infringement may be enough: “The court does not find that the DMCA was intended to have Veoh shoulder the entire burden of policing third-party copyrights on its web­site (at the cost of losing its business if it cannot). Rather, the issue is wheth­er Veoh takes appropriate steps to deal with copyright infringement that takes place. The record presented demonstrates that, far from encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its website, and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its website. In sum, Veoh has met its burden in establishing its entitlement to safe harbor for the alleged infringements here.” [Emphasis added.] On the other hand, Io contains language suggesting that a service provider must do everything it reasonably can to stop infringements: “Perhaps most importantly, there is no indication that Veoh has failed to police its system to the fullest extent permitted by its architecture.” One of Viacom’s allegations is that YouTube is not policing its system as thoroughly as it can. According to Viacom’s complaint, YouTube has filtering technology that can identify and possibly remove copyrighted material, but this technology is used to protect only works that are licensed to appear on YouTube—such as music videos of Sony BMG artists, clips from HBO shows and segments from MGM movies. Unlicensed works don’t benefit from this technology, and their copyright owners thus face a flood of infringing posts. “Viacom’s claim is that YouTube is not policing its system to the fullest extent permitted by its architecture, and in fact is holding some tools back as a bargaining chip [to force copyright owners to license their works to YouTube],” Bruce Boyden, a professor of IP law at Marquette University, has written in his blog. “To the extent Io and other decisions are holding that, to preserve its DMCA immunity, an ISP has to police its system to the best of its abilities, YouTube may be in trouble.” If the courts eventually determine that the DMCA’s safe harbor protects most service pro­viders against liability for their users’ posts of infringing works, online companies and their users would benefit. Copyright owners, however, would find themselves in a difficult position. They would be forced to continue their Whac-a-Mole efforts to curb online infringements, and could bring infringement suits only against those people who upload or download the infringing works. “That would be terrible ... because the damages you can get from individuals can never repay the costs of going after those individuals,” Goldstein says. “If intermediaries can immunize themselves, there is no one effectively for copyright owners to collect from.” THE NEWEST FRONTIER There is another major front in the online copyright wars. Copyright owners have been pushing Con-­ gress to revise the Copyright Act, and they won a significant legislative victory in October when President Bush signed the Pro-IP Act into law. The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for In­tellectual Property Act of 2008, S.3325, shifts some of the burden for copyright enforcement from copyright owners to the government. The law increases funds for local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to investigate criminal copyright and trademark infringements. It also creates the Cabinet-level position of an intellectual property enforcement coordinator with responsibility for coordinating the federal government’s efforts to crack down on infringements. In addition, the law clarifies when civil forfeiture can be used against those allegedly involved in copyright infringement. It empowers U.S. attorneys to get ex parte orders from courts to seize “any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate” criminal copyright infringement. This poses new risks for YouTube, ISPs and other online intermediaries. “Prosecutors could use this provision to seize servers of Internet companies, or threaten to seize them, in order to get these companies to cooperate,” says Jonathan Band, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents NetCoalition, an advocacy group for major Internet companies, including Google, Yahoo and CNet. “This is a very powerful remedy,” Band says. “A pros­ecutor needs to show only probable cause in order to seize the property. To recover the property, the accused must go to court. The burden is on him to show, by preponderance of the evidence, he is innocent.” That could be a very difficult burden for online companies to bear. “If a company took all reasonable measures to stop infringement, it can get its property back,” Band says. “But what are reasonable measures? Should the company have done greater filtering of content supplied by users? It opens up a whole can of worms.” The Pro-IP Act is just the latest instance of copyright owners’ efforts on Capitol Hill. “They are constantly trying to increase the remedies for infringement—increase criminal sanctions, increase civil forfeiture, increase statutory damages,” Band says. “Every year they are trying to do something on the remedies front.” That’s probably because copyright owners have had only limited success in stopping online infringements, despite sending a blizzard of takedown notices and filing thousands of infringement suits. Over the last five years, for instance, the recording industry has filed more than 30,000 lawsuits against individuals who allegedly shared copyrighted songs on peer-to-peer networks, but file-sharing remains a major problem. So copyright owners are looking for more effective ways to enforce their rights in the online world. They are pressing Congress to enact tougher laws against infringement and pushing courts to hold online intermediaries—such as YouTube—liable for their customers’ infringements. Such efforts, however, may be misguided, says Band. “The entertainment industry wants to change the law to protect their existing business models,” he says, “rather than change their business models to adapt to new technology.” Protectionist behavior by copyright owners is nothing new. “There’s a recurrent pattern whenever a new technology crops up,” Litman says. “Existing content industries insist that the new technology must play by the old copyright rules. ... The new companies say that the old rules fit your technology and business models, but they don’t fit our technology and business models. Some­times the older companies impose restrictions that try to stop the new technology, but in the end, the old and new companies reach some compromise.” This time, however, copyright owners may need to compromise with more than just the new online businesses. Content owners may need to reach an understanding with tens of millions of U.S. Internet users. “History tells us that unless the [copyright] rules will accommodate their interests, there will be no stability,” Litman says. “If the public does not see the rules as legitimate, they won’t obey them.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Seidenberg is a lawyer and freelance journalist in Fanwood, N.J., who contributes regularly to the ABA Journal. From stiehm.law at juno.com Mon Apr 13 13:14:53 2009 From: stiehm.law at juno.com (Patrick H. Stiehm) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:14:53 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Message-ID: <20090413.091453.5092.5.stiehm.law@juno.com> The other side of that coin is that I have seen some judges bar none lawyers from going inside the bar area, except as witnesses, clerks of court, bailiffs and court reporters. You need to know what the judge will permit or ask in advance. Patrick H. Stiehm Stiehm Law Office Alexandria, VA 22309 703-360-1089 (Voice) 703-935-8266 (Fax) On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:57:10 -0700 writes: > Several attorneys that I know have a paralegal with them in court to > assist > with them with document control and whatever else is needed. These > attorneys > are sighted. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > ____________________________________________________________ Learn to trade with confidence! Online Stock Trading. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFPBVMEsA7xpW5Opk1WfzRN4fcu7GOjSZ0QpuaGTTVgYNkHAw7JIE/ From craig.borne at dot.gov Mon Apr 13 12:52:22 2009 From: craig.borne at dot.gov (craig.borne at dot.gov) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:52:22 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> References: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722D3@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> John, Start with your company's employee policies and procedures manual. In private employment, the relationship is built a lot on the employment agreement, which usually incorporates by reference the employee manual. Check this out first and see if there are any prohibitions on personal mail going out through the company system, privacy with non-company owned materials, etc. Craig Craig Borne NHTSA/DOT (202) 493-0627 craig.borne at dot.gov -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:50 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question Hi Steve, No prior issues and I thought that I got along with her. I have no idea what if anything will happen and don't want to seem litigious but appropriate boundaries have to be established in the workplace. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:17 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, unless there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your manager? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray wayne" To: Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my > employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) > That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable > expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers > and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I > suspect the same applies to private employers. > So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful > in the future. > Ray Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John was > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 > Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > >> >> >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >> overlapping federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >> I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >> I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >> it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >> it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >> not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >> has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >> raising >> the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> > but the >> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> > mistake >> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >> > while >> > in >> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >> > the >> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> > you >> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> > very >> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> > exhibits >> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >> > think >> > one >> > should always get an assistant to help out. >> > >> > Rod Alcidonis >> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> > Roger Williams University School of Law >> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> > Bristol, RI 02809 >> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> > [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> > And, if >> > >> > so, how well does it work? >> > >> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >> > in the courtroom? >> > >> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> > attorney who >> > >> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Rod Alcidonis >> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >ar >> >ar -----Original Message----- >> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >> >) >> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >ar >> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> >ar an order please visit >> >ar >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >> n.com >> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >ar >> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >> >the ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >> >an ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >> >software and ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >> >cost $295.00. The ar entire package including the screen reader >> >option cost $1,665.00 plus ar shipping. ar >> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >ar >> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Cordially, >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Mike Hingson >> >ar >> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >> >ar Michael Hingson, President >> >ar (415) 827-4084 >> >ar >> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> >ar >> > >> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >> on.com >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> >ar com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> > ail.com >> >ar >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> > com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> ail.com >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >> cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc. rr.c om > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley% 40in sightbb.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox .net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 dot.gov From everett at zufelt.ca Tue Apr 14 07:29:20 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:29:20 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: <7BC490B5-4244-463F-8116-360ED2B11B23@zufelt.ca> On 13-Apr-09, at 10:10 AM, wrote: > Hello all, > Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, > practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free > legal advice? > I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which > comments are given. The purpose of Blind Law is for the discussion of legal matters and topics directly related to blind people and their blindness. This discussion area will be directly monitored by members of the National Association of Blind Lawyers, a division of the National Federation of the Blind. This area is also intended as a means for the members of the National Association of Blind Lawyers to stay in contact with each other. http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org HTH, Everett Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/ezufelt View my LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 07:53:58 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:53:58 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: <20090414075358.GE22983@yumi.bluecherry.net> I believe the intent is the former, but it's a public list that anyone may subscribe to. Joseph On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 09:10:20AM -0400, craig.borne at dot.gov wrote: >Hello all, >Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, >practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free >legal advice? >I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which >comments are given. >Thank you, >Craig > >Craig Borne, Esq. >NHTSA/DOT >(202) 493-0627 >craig.borne at dot.gov From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Apr 14 16:19:31 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:19:31 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice Message-ID: ________________________________ From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:12 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice ________________________________ From: Hunter, Sue [mailto:Sue.Hunter at usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:39 AM To: nromulus at gmail.com; ntb at boglechang.com; ocaaba at cox.net; omanager at lawyerscomm.org; palsd at hotmail.com; patel at fr.com; pchanster at yahoo.com; pchapman at koonz.com; pgrewal at daycasebeer.com; pkim at lordbissell.com; Maurer, Patricia; pmorrison at state.wv.us; poppy.johnston at unlv.edu; president at abaw.org; president at adc.org; president at apabala.org; president at blackwomenlawyersla.org; president at dominicanbarassociation.org; president at mabl.org; president at msba.org; president at phillybarristers.org; president at sabasc.org Subject: FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice To learn more about our attorneys and what they like most about working at DOJ, please visit our attorney profiles at, http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/profiles.htm, and the video clips of our attorneys and interns available at https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/ads/jobsatdojoarm/index.jsp We encourage you to share this email with interested colleagues and peers. If you no longer wish to receive these periodic email announcements, please respond to this email address and ask to be removed from our mailing list. Thank you. Current Department of Justice Attorney Vacancies * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW FLORENCE, AZ VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0047 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW SAN ANTONIO, TX VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0046 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW DENVER, COLORADO VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0045 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BLOOMINGTON, MN VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0044 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL (FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND ARSON DIVISION) ATTORNEY ADVISOR, GS-905-15 WASHINGTON, DC Applications must be received by April 20, 2009, the closing date of this announcement. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. TRUSTEE'S OFFICE -- PHOENIX, ARIZONA TRIAL ATTORNEY Applications must be postmarked by the closing date of and will be accepted up to five calendar days after the closing date (May 4, 2009). Date posted: 04-10-2009 * EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEYS(GS-0905-13/14/15) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION GANG UNIT WASHINGTON, DC Vacancy Number: 09-CRM-GSU-011 Deadline date for submission is July 9, 2009. The cut-off will be the 15th and 30th of each month. Date posted: 04-10-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. TRUSTEE'S OFFICE -- DETROIT, MICHIGAN EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY/GS-12 to GS-15 This position will be open until May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-08-2009 * ATTORNEY-ADVISOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE (CONSOLIDATED LEGAL CENTER) ATLANTA, GEORGIA GS-905-14 This position is open until filled, but no later than April 22, 2009. Date posted: 04-08-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF THE LEGAL PROGRAMS AND POLICY SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY ADVISOR, GS-0905-15 VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NO: 09-EOUSA-39 Application materials must be received by 11:59pm (Eastern Standard Time) on the closing date April 22, 2009. Date posted: 04-08-2009 * EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS DRUG SECTION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-NDDS-010 This position is open until April 27th, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL COMMERCIAL LAW BRANCH ATTORNEY-ADVISOR GS-905-12/13/14 This position is open until filled, but no later than April 21, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 09-AZ-04 Résumé must be received by April 27, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Applications must be postmarked by April 20, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES LEGAL DIVISION EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY Applications must be postmarked no later than May 6, 2009. Date posted: 04-06-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 09-SD-001 Applications must be post marked by May 15, 2009. Date posted: 04-06-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAX DIVISION, CRIMINAL APPEALS AND TAX ENFORCEMENT POLICY SECTION WASHINGTON, D.C. TRIAL ATTORNEY / GS-12 to GS-15 The closing date of this announcement is May 6, 2009, and applications should be received no later than the close of business on that date. Date posted: 04-03-2009 * EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS / GS-12 to GS-15 CIVIL DIVISION, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH NATIONAL COURTS SECTION Positions open until filled on a rolling basis. Accordingly, applications should be submitted as early as possible but, in any event, not later than April 20, 2009. Date posted: 04-03-2009 * TRIAL ATTORNEYS, GS-12 THROUGH GS-15 CIVIL DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION APPELLATE LITIGATION WASHINGTON, DC Positions open until filled on a rolling basis. Accordingly, applications should be submitted as early as possible but, in any event, not later than May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-01-2009 The purpose of this email is to advise potential interested persons of employment opportunities at the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of this information. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information. -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com Tue Apr 14 19:13:25 2009 From: ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com (Olusegun -- Victory Associates LTD, Inc.) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:13:25 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] NOTARY PUBLIC? References: <06dd01c83a6c$646a34a0$6801a8c0@computer1> Message-ID: Hi Everyone: I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has owned and operated a notary public; specifically, I'd like to know the approaches used in running one from a blindness perspective. Mega thanks!! Sincerely, Olusegun Denver, Colorado From dandrews at visi.com Wed Apr 15 09:36:43 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:36:43 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Baltimore Sun Op-Ed Piece from Dr. Maurer on Kindle Message-ID: FYI. from the Baltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.blind14apr14,0,2676842.story Bias against blind book lovers By Marc Maurer April 14, 2009 I love to read, and I've been doing it ever since I was able. My wife is also an avid reader. But my wife and I are blind, and because I lead the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind, we have many blind friends. And although many of us read everything we can get our hands on, we can't get our hands on very much to read. There are services for us, of course. Government entities and nonprofit organizations convert books into Braille, audio, or digital form for our use. But only 5 percent of all books published undergo such a conversion. A few more are available as commercial audio books, but these are often abridged, and those that are unabridged are quite expensive. Nowadays, a solution to the problem of reading material is tantalizingly within our reach: the e-book. When Amazon released its new Kindle 2 e-book reader earlier this year, it announced that the device now includes text-to-speech software and can read e-books aloud. Those of us who are blind were filled with joy at this news. For the first time in history, it would now be possible, we hoped, for the blind to do something that everyone else takes for granted: purchase a brand new book and start reading it right away. Our hope quickly turned to despair, however - and then to anger. The Authors Guild doesn't want the Kindle 2 to be able to read books aloud. They say this new capability violates authors' copyrights. This argument has absolutely no basis in copyright law. Reading a print book aloud or having it read aloud to you in the privacy of your home is not a copyright violation; the only difference with the Kindle 2 is that a machine rather than a human being is doing the reading. In the face of this specious attack from the Authors Guild, Amazon initially took the legally and morally correct position that the text-to-speech feature of the Kindle 2 did not violate copyright law. But then the company backed down, saying it would allow authors and publishers to decide which books they would permit to be read aloud by the device. Dismayed, we contacted the Authors Guild. It claimed it did not oppose having e-books read aloud to the blind, as long as there was a national registry of blind people who would then be allowed to unlock the text-to-speech feature. This is wrong. The Authors Guild has no right to discriminate against disabled readers by segregating us into a separate and unequal class. If our sighted friends don't have to "sign up" to be permitted to read, then blind people shouldn't either. And once we buy a book, how we read it is nobody's business but ours. When we told the Authors Guild this, they added insult to injury by telling us that, if we wouldn't sign up for a registry, we would just have to pay extra in order to use text-to-speech. Needless to say, this is outrageous and reprehensible behavior from an organization of people who claim to support equal access to literature by all Americans. Instead of facilitating the free flow of information, the Authors Guild is making itself the arbiter of who is worthy of access to the printed word. The Authors Guild isn't just discriminating against blind people. People with other disabilities - especially brain injuries and conditions like dyslexia - would also benefit from the ability to have books read aloud to them electronically. Groups representing many of these people are joining us to protest the position of the Authors Guild and Amazon's craven response to it. At present, very few of us buy books in any form. If we could have e-books read aloud to us, however, we would happily pay for them. We are an untapped market consisting of some 15 million people to which authors and publishers have never before had direct access. For this reason, the position of the Authors Guild is not only morally repugnant but also bad business. Prohibiting the blind and others from reading commercially available e-books just means that authors and publishers won't get our money. The guild's position hurts both authors and people with print disabilities. In an age when how we get information is constantly and rapidly changing, it's important that people with disabilities have access to it in the same way that it is important for us to have access to physical structures, goods and services. Amazon took an important step in the right direction by including a read-aloud feature on the Kindle 2, but the Authors Guild is now trying to set us back. We are not going to allow them to stand in the doorway of the virtual bookstore to keep us out. Marc Maurer is president of the National Federation of the Blind. His e-mail is officeofthepresident at nfb.org. From dandrews at visi.com Wed Apr 15 10:47:22 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:47:22 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot .gov> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: Well, it is a little of both, but primarily a list for legal professionals, law students, etc. David Andrews, Moderator At 08:10 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote: >Hello all, >Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, >practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free >legal advice? >I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which >comments are given. >Thank you, >Craig > >Craig Borne, Esq. >NHTSA/DOT >(202) 493-0627 >craig.borne at dot.gov > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >On Behalf Of Bryan Schulz >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:45 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > >hi, > >i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the >job. > >Bryan Schulz >The BEST Solution >www.best-acts.com > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John " >To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM >Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > > > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > > federal > > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >corporation > > in a > > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and >today I > > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and >before I > > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >it > > was > > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just >placing it > > back > > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was >also > > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >not > > want > > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > > company > > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > > letterhead, > > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without >first > > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >has > > it's > > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > > Thanks, > > John > > > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >On > > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >the > > question. I know what I go into court with. > > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party >than > > anyone. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, > >> but > >> the > >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > >> mistake > >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >while > >> in > >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >the > >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >criticize > >> you > >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would >feel > >> very > >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your > >> exhibits > >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >think > >> one > >> should always get an assistant to help out. > >> > >> Rod Alcidonis > >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >> Roger Williams University School of Law > >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >> Bristol, RI 02809 > >> Home: (401) 824-8685 > >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland > >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> > >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? > >> And, > >> if > >> > >> so, how well does it work? > >> > >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >in > >> the courtroom? > >> > >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another > >> attorney > >> who > >> > >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" > >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> > >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > >>> > >>> > >>> Rod Alcidonis > >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >>> Roger Williams University School of Law > >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >>> Bristol, RI 02809 > >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 > >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > >>> On > >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >) > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >>> > >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >Federation > >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place > >>> an order please visit > >>> > > >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.c >om > >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >>> > >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >the > >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software >and > >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. >The > >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 >plus > >>> shipping. > >>> > >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >>> > >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > >>> > >>> > >>> Cordially, > >>> > >>> > >>> Mike Hingson > >>> > >>> The Michael Hingson Group > >>> "Speaking with Vision" > >>> Michael Hingson, President > >>> (415) 827-4084 > >>> > >>> info at michaelhingson.com > >>> www.michaelhingson.com > >>> > >>> > >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > >>> > >> > > >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson. >com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blindlaw mailing list > >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for > >>> blindlaw: > >>> > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm >ail. > >>> com > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blindlaw mailing list > >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for > >>> blindlaw: > >>> > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 >hotm > >> ail.com > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >> blindlaw: > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm >ail. > >> com > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >> blindlaw: > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 >hotm > > ail.com > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox >.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbc >global.net > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 >dot.gov > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Apr 15 16:16:04 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:16:04 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Looking for paralegal Chuck! Message-ID: Chuck: Could you send me your contact information? My e-mail address is: Noel.nightingale at ed.gov Thanks. Noel From JFreeh at nfb.org Wed Apr 15 18:17:32 2009 From: JFreeh at nfb.org (Freeh, Jessica) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:17:32 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind to Present Second Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind (410) 659-9314, extension 2330 (410) 262-1281 (Cell) cdanielsen at nfb.org National Federation of the Blind to Present Second Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium Kareem Dale, President Obama's Special Assistant for Disability Policy, to Address Gathering and Field Questions Baltimore, Maryland (April 15, 2009): The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) will present the second Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium on April 17, 2009, at the NFB Jernigan Institute in Baltimore. The symposium, entitled "New Perspectives on Disability Law: Advancing the Right to Live in the World" and named for NFB founder and pioneering legal scholar Dr. Jacobus tenBroek (1911-1968), will gather public officials, legal scholars, and disability rights advocates for a full-day seminar on the state of disability law in the United States and the world and will discuss how disability rights may be advanced in the future. Kareem Dale, special assistant for disability policy to United States President Barack Obama, will make a presentation to the gathering. Mr. Dale will speak on the Obama administration's policies on disability issues for approximately thirty minutes followed by a forty-five minute question and answer session. "Our first Jacobus tenBroek symposium was a stunning success, and we are looking forward to once again hosting leading players and thinkers in the disability community," said Dr. Marc Maurer, an attorney and President of the National Federation of the Blind. "Disability law is rapidly changing at the national and international level, and this forum will provide an opportunity for everyone to assess developments and plan strategies in this dynamic and critically important field." Other presenters at the 2009 symposium include Professor Gerard Quinn, National University of Ireland, Galway; Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Professor Samuel Bagenstos, UCLA School of Law; and Professor Peter Blanck, Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek was a constitutional law scholar, a blind professor at Berkeley, and an author of treatises on the Fourteenth Amendment and social welfare. Dr. tenBroek created the concept that civil rights should apply to disabled Americans, and he published extensively on the application of the law to those with disabilities. His efforts to advance civil rights for the blind and others with disabilities included drafting the Model White Cane Law, which has had a profound influence on the development of civil rights laws for the disabled throughout the United States, and publishing authoritative articles like "The Right to Live in the World: The Disabled in the Law of Torts." For more information about the National Federation of the Blind, please visit www.nfb.org. ### From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 16 05:22:15 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:22:15 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Webinar Series: Legal Rights of People with Alcohol/Drug Problems or Criminal Records Message-ID: <472EF221ECD84CD787456BF9B43DDB5F@spike> These are free training that might be of interest. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: Legal Action Center To: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:26 PM Subject: Webinar Series: Legal Rights of People with Alcohol/Drug Problems or Criminal Records If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online. Is it Legal to Discriminate Because of a Person's Alcohol/Drug Problem? Criminal Record? Find out through this Free Webinar Series Know Your Rights: Anti-Discrimination Laws Protecting People with Alcohol and Drug Problems and Criminal Records -------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: April 29th May 13th and 28th June (to be determined) TIME: 1:30 p.m. EST LENGTH: 60 minutes Under the Partners for Recovery Initiative funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Abt Associates and the Legal Action Center invite you to a free webinar series. The webinars will be presented by Legal Action Center attorneys, the nation's leading experts on laws and policies affecting individuals with alcohol/drug problems and criminal records. For more information or to register for one or more of these free 60 minute webinars, click here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- What you will learn: Who is invited? a.. How Federal law protects people in recovery from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and government services and programs b.. Legal protections for people in Medication-Assisted Treatment c.. Legal rights of people with criminal records, including anti-discrimination laws and expungement d.. Strategies to prevent or remedy violations of these laws e.. Federal Mental Health and Addiction Parity Law: Update on Implementation a.. People in treatment and/or recovery and their allies b.. Providers of alcohol/drug treatment, prevention and recovery services c.. Federal and State Government oversight agencies d.. Individuals with criminal records and reentry groups e.. Anyone else interested in these topics Course Offerings TOPIC DATE TIME Employment Discrimination Against People with Alcohol/Drug Histories Details / Register April 29, 2009 1:30 pm (EST) Housing, Health Care, and Other Forms of Discrimination Against People with Alcohol/Drug Histories Details / Register May 13, 2009 1:30 pm (EST) Medication-Assisted Treatment: Special Anti-Discrimination Issues Details / Register May 28, 2009 1:30 pm (EST) Legal Rights of People with Criminal Records Details / Register June Date to be determined TBD New Federal Parity Legislation for Insurance Coverage of Addiction Treatment Details / Register June Date to be determined TBD Can't attend one of the webinars? No problem. The whole series will be repeated during the summer! For more information about the Legal Action Center, visit www.lac.org for more information. For information about the Partners for Recovery Initiative, visit www.pfr.samhsa.gov. This email was sent to ckrugman at sbcglobal.net. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. manage your preferences | opt out using TrueRemove®. Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. email marketing by Sinu powered by From everett at zufelt.ca Fri Apr 17 21:01:15 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:01:15 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Using discovery from other countries? Message-ID: <38696661-DE0F-42F9-80B3-4000BA5FC5EB@zufelt.ca> Good evening, Not being a lawyer and having never taken a course in evidence, please forgive any ignorance in the following question. Based on a hypothetical situation, would a U.S. court be generally willing to accept evidence that was obtained through the process of discovery in a legal proceeding in another country? Thanks, Everett Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/ezufelt View my LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt From mikefry79 at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 00:16:09 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:16:09 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Using discovery from other countries? In-Reply-To: <38696661-DE0F-42F9-80B3-4000BA5FC5EB@zufelt.ca> References: <38696661-DE0F-42F9-80B3-4000BA5FC5EB@zufelt.ca> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904171716s1fd47fehd89aa8dfb3972cdb@mail.gmail.com> Yes, they'd at least consider accepting it. Only relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant evidence is any thing that tends to prove a material fact in the case more likely than not. Or something along those lines at least. On another note, why did I do this stupid LLM program? I'll tell you the reason, it was because I couldn't get a good job. It's awful. Oh well. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > Not being a lawyer and having never taken a course in evidence, please > forgive any ignorance in the following question. > > Based on a hypothetical situation, would a U.S. court be generally willing > to accept evidence that was obtained through the process of discovery in a > legal proceeding in another country? > > Thanks, > Everett > > Follow me on Twitter > http://twitter.com/ezufelt > > View my LinkedIn Profile > http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From CDanielsen at nfb.org Sat Apr 18 04:48:24 2009 From: CDanielsen at nfb.org (Danielsen, Chris) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:48:24 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Los Angeles Festival of Books Message-ID: Dear Fellow Federationists: The Reading Rights Coalition, led by the National Federation of the Blind, is scheduled to participate in the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. The coalition will have a table set up in one of the festival's exhibit areas so that we may provide the reading and publishing communities with information about our concerns regarding the threatened "turning off" of text-to-speech in books available for Amazon's Kindle 2 electronic reading device. The festival, the largest book fair in the world, will take place on the campus of the University of California at Los Angeles from April 25-26. If you would like to help with our exhibit, please contact Ann-Marie Laney by calling (410) 659-9314, extension 2219, or e-mail her at alaney at nfb.org. Please join us in our continuing efforts to ensure that everyone has access to e-books. From albertsanchez at suddenlink.net Sat Apr 18 04:50:57 2009 From: albertsanchez at suddenlink.net (Albert Sanchez) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:50:57 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] We invite you to join us at a Memorial Service Honoring the life of Paul Kay Message-ID: Dear Federation Friends, I recently received the following message regarding a memorial service for Paul Kay and I am forwarding it for your information since many on this list knew him. Yours in Federationism, Albert Sanchez Al's Piano Tuning & Repair 215 John Avenue Greenville, NC 27858-4113 252-757-3023 ----- Original Message ----- From: LPovinelli at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:00 PM Subject: We invite you to join us at a Memorial Service Honoring the life of Paul Kay We invite you to join us at a Memorial Service Honoring the life of Paul Edward Kay Sunday, May 17, 2009 at three o'clock in the afternoon Temple Adas Israel 2850 Quebec Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20008 Elizabeth Kay Goldstein & Lawrence Povinelli RSVP by Friday, May 8, 2009 (703) 969-6476 or via email at lpovinelli at aol.comm From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 18 14:10:23 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:10:23 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] wanted: your stories of disability versus copyright law Message-ID: The following notice from the Electronic Frontier Foundation may be of interest. Chuck April 15th, 2009 Wanted: Your Stories of Disability Versus Copyright Law Announcement by Danny O'Brien In preparation for WIPO's initiative on Exceptions & Limitations to Copyright, the US Copyright Office is currently soliciting comments on the topic of "facilitating access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities". Written comments are due next week (April 21st, 2009), and there will be a public meeting in Washington on May 18th. EFF will be sending our own submission, as will many other IP and disability groups. But if you've worked on software or hardware to overcome your own visual or other disabilities, or co-operated informally (perhaps in an open source project) to provide wider access to content for users with disabilities, or have dealt with a publisher regarding the accessibility of texts, we'd like to encourage you to send the copyright office your own stories - and cc: us at accessibility at eff.org. Much of current IP law on increasing accessibility to content is concerned with exceptions for narrow conditions or traditional institutions. For instance, the Chafee Amendment provides for free ebooks for the blind, but only through "authorized entities" - such as a dedicated government agency or non-profit organization (e.g. Bookshare ). The Copyright Office's triennial list of exemptions from the DMCA's anti-circumvention laws includes a category for legally unlocking the DRM on ebooks - but if you do so, you are not allowed to market or share tools for removing this DRM to other disabled users. Our experience of innovation in the digital world and its clash with existing IP law is that many overlooked examples come from individual technologists "scratching their personal itch" , as well as loosely-organized groups. If DMCA's anti-circumvention laws (and ebook DRM) have prevented you as an individual, for example, from format-shifting content to a form usable by assistive technology, or even changed the font size of an ebook to a readable level, please send your story. Unexpected applications of new technology are important to raise too: if you are deaf, and wish to benefit from the possibility of "signing books" (many who are deaf from birth have difficulties with learning to read, and benefit from visual hand-signs in the same way that the visually-impaired benefit from simultaneous text-to-speech), write in. As the Register of Copyrights noted when considering the anti-circumvention exemption for ebooks , the transition of media to the digital world block quote perhaps for the first time offer an individual blind person the possibility of "self-help" in making a copy of a literary work perceptible. block quote end We want to make sure that the Copyright Office hears from everyone who is helping themselves, and yet finds their way thwarted by clumsy law or unnecessary technological restrictions. The full text of the Notice of Inquiry is below (and also available as PDF here). [Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 13268-13270] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr09-110] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Persons With Other Disabilities; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for comments; notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office (Copyright Office) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seek comment on the topic of facilitating access to copyrighted works for ``blind or persons with other disabilities'' \1\ in connection with a forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the topics outlined in the supplementary information section of this notice. The Copyright Office and USPTO also announce a public meeting on the same topic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Various terms are used formally and informally throughout the world. When inquiring about experiences within the United States, the term used in this Notice of Inquiry is that which appears in U.S. copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. 121(d)(2). There, the term ``blind or persons with other disabilities'' is defined to include individuals who are eligible or who may qualify in accordance with the Act entitled ``An Act to provide books for the adult blind,'' approved March 3, 1931 (2 U.S.C. 135a; 46 Stat. 1487). DATES: Initial comments on the Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments are due on April 21, 2009. Reply comments are due on May 4, 2009. The public meeting will be held Monday, May 18, 2009, from 9:30 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments If hand-delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of a comment or a reply comment should be brought to the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Public Information Office, Room LM- 401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (CCAS) located at 2nd and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM-403, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services such as Fedex, United Parcel Service, or DHL. If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Office of Policy and International Affairs, Copyright GC/I & R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Public Meeting The public meeting will be held in the Montpelier Room of the Library of Congress, James Madison Building, 6th Floor, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559. The process for submitting requests to attend and observe or participate in the meeting, as well as the agenda, will be published on the Web site of the U.S. Copyright Office no later than April 8, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Pallante, Associate Register, Policy and International Affairs, or Michele Woods, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at 202-707-1027, by facsimile at 202-707-8366 or by electronic mail at mpall at loc.gov or mwoo at loc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The United States is a Member State of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and an active member of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). At recent meetings of the SCCR, WIPO facilitated discussions on the topic of copyright limitations and exceptions, including limitations and exceptions for ``blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons.'' \2\ At its next meeting (May 25-29, 2009), the SCCR will continue to consider this topic, among others, and will exchange information and experiences in order to deepen its collective understanding of the issues. As part of the process, the SCCR is looking to the copyright limitations and exceptions that are currently available for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons around the world, and has invited Member States to provide supplementary information regarding their national laws and experiences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ This term appears in some relevant WIPO documents. See e.g. ``Conclusions of the SCCR,'' November 5-7, 2008, at http:// www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_www_ 112533.pdf (last visited on March 20, 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In preparation for the meeting, the Copyright Office and the USPTO have been gathering relevant information. To date, the Copyright Office and USPTO have participated in a series of informal meetings and conference calls (primarily with stakeholders from the blind community, but also with representatives of the library, book publishing, software, motion picture, and nonprofit sectors) in which multiple specific issues have been identified and a number of common points have emerged. On the basis of these preliminary discussions, the Copyright Office and the USPTO understand that blind and other persons with disabilities in the United States navigate many complex challenges when it comes to accessing copyrighted works. Common refrains include delays in obtaining accessible texts (with timeliness of accessible materials a particular problem for students at all levels), compatibility problems between available formats and the hardware devices employed by the reader, and inconsistencies in the quality and accuracy of the available, reformatted works. At the international level, the Copyright Office and the USPTO were made aware of the existing framework through which accessible works move across borders (i.e. through private agreement and interlibrary [[Page 13269]] programs), as well as some of the difficulties the framework presents. Possible Actions Through discussions with stakeholders and previous meetings of the SCCR, the Copyright Office and USPTO are aware of some measures that might be appropriate for action at the national or international levels (through Member States, WIPO or other mechanisms). Such possible actions include the following: (1) Developing standardized accessibility formats and other technical norms; (2) establishing trusted intermediaries to coordinate resources, eliminate unnecessary duplication of accessible works, and ensure best practices; (3) providing technical assistance, coordination, and educational outreach; (4) promoting market-based solutions achieved through private sector copyright licenses or other agreements; and (5) developing binding or non-binding international instruments, including a treaty that would establish minimum requirements for limitations and exceptions for blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons. The Copyright Office and the USPTO are interested in learning how these areas of focus might address existing difficulties with access to copyright works, whether applied alone or in combination with each other. Suggestions as to measures not covered above are also welcome. Please note that WIPO posts various documents from its meetings on its Web site, including reports and agendas related to the consideration of copyright limitations and exceptions. Documents from SCCR meetings that included consideration of this issue can be found by starting at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/topic.jsp?group_id=62 and following the link to information for each specific meeting. A study on copyright limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired can be found at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_ id=75696. Subjects of Inquiry At this time, in order to allow further opportunity for interested persons to provide their views, the Copyright Office and the USPTO are seeking comment on several focused topics related to the provision of access to copyrighted works for blind and other persons with disabilities. Unless otherwise specified, the focus of the inquiry is the experiences of interested parties residing or doing business in the United States. Nevertheless, parties should not feel constrained from describing transnational experiences and situations if they are illustrative of a problem or success. A. Experiences of Persons Within the United States With Respect To Accessing U.S. Works or Sharing Accessible Copies Within the United States In general, the Copyright Office and the USPTO seek to learn more about the experiences of the blind or persons with other disabilities with respect to accessing and sharing U.S. copyrighted works within the United States. Please reference any specific policies, practices and projects that exist or are emerging in the education, library and business sectors while considering the questions set forth below. 1. Applicable Statutory or Regulatory Provisions: The United States has relevant existing limitations on exclusive rights in the Copyright Act. Section 121 (the so-called ``Chafee Amendment'') authorizes the reproduction of copyrighted works for blind or other persons with disabilities under certain circumstances. Section 121(a) contains general language providing that it is not copyright infringement ``for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are produced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.'' Section 121(c) provides a specific limitation applicable to publishers of ``print instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools'' so that they may create and distribute electronic files consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 17 U.S.C. 21(c). Those electronic files must use the National Instructional Material Accessibility Standard (NIMAS). Id. How have the Chafee Amendment and related statutory and regulatory provisions worked in practice? 2. Private Sector Initiatives: The Copyright Office and the USPTO are aware that book publishers have been involved in the development and implementation of Section 121 and other laws applicable to disabilities and education. What are additional ways in which the private sector facilitates, or plans to facilitate, access to copyrighted works? Please identify and describe in detail any existing business models, licensing schemes, or technological innovations that are relevant, not only for books but for other copyrighted works, e.g., magazines, newspapers, motion pictures, and software. To date, what has been the result of these efforts in terms of achieving accessible content? Do best practices exist? Turning to the nonprofit sector, what are the activities, business models, or technology platforms that have emerged and what has been the result to date? What if any are the additional projects under consideration? 3. Library Programs: Libraries play an important role in providing access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities. The Library of Congress, through its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, provides Braille and audio materials (e.g., talking books) to eligible borrowers through cooperating libraries in the United States. NLS also provides interlibrary loan services to citizens of other countries through qualified libraries or other institutions in those countries. Private organizations, such as Bookshare, provide access to digital materials through an online searchable library. What other sorts of libraries or library services currently facilitate access to copyrighted works? What physical and digital delivery methods are being used? What initiatives have libraries taken to develop new services and to respond to evolving needs and technologies? What coordination exists among national and international library services? 4. Standardized Formats, Programs and Devices: In recent years, entrepreneurs and other representatives of the blind or persons with other disabilities have made significant progress in efforts to upgrade and standardize the technical formats, programs and devices that allow access to books and other text. These include the talking-book format of DAISY (Digital Accessible Information System) that is compatible with screen readers, as well as stationary and portable DAISY players that feature synthetic-voices, and various versions of scan-and-read software. Paper-based Braille has evolved into digital formats that offer refreshable displays and nonlinear search capabilities when used with applicable devices. Are there additional innovations in use or under development today and, if so, what is their focus? What are the impediments, and possible solutions, for improving existing standardized formats, programs and devices, developing new ones, and/or facilitating their interoperability? 5. Resources: To what degree is a lack of sufficient resources a factor in providing access to the blind or persons with other disabilities? What governmental, private sector, nonprofit, or philanthropic resources exist? What types of resources are most needed? [[Page 13270]] What approaches to expanding available resources are most promising? What objectives could be met and in what time frame if additional resources were available? B. Experiences of Persons Within the United States With Respect To Accessing Foreign Works or Sharing Accessible Copies of U.S. Works With Foreign Persons Please comment on the experiences of the blind or persons with other disabilities with respect to accessing foreign works within the United States, or sharing accessible copies of U.S. works with similarly-situated persons outside the United States. What kinds of specific policies, practices and projects exist or are emerging in the education, library and business sectors? How do existing laws create incentives or constrain efforts? Please describe the ways in which technology has influenced or could assist in providing access to foreign works or the sharing of accessible copies. What are the legal or practical impediments to transnational access and how are they interrelated? C. Other Comments on Facilitating and Enhancing Access to Copyrighted Works Please comment on the likely success of measures identified above under the subsection entitled ``Possible Actions'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. How might the measures best be leveraged, alone or in combination, to enhance access for the blind or other persons with disabilities? Are there additional governmental or private sector actions that might serve the objective of enhancing access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities? Dated: March 20, 2009. Maria Pallante, Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office. [FR Doc. E9-6637 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wanted-your-stories-disability From Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov Mon Apr 20 20:44:22 2009 From: Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov (Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS)) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:44:22 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With Disabilities Message-ID: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B73C@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With Disabilities; Notice of Public Meeting http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ Background The United States is a Member State of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and an active member of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). At recent meetings of the SCCR, WIPO facilitated discussions on the topic of copyright limitations and exceptions, including limitations and exceptions for "blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons." At its next meeting (May 25-29, 2009), the SCCR will continue to consider this topic and will exchange information and experiences in order to deepen its collective understanding of the issues. As part of the process, the SCCR is looking to the copyright limitations and exceptions that are currently available for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons around the world, and has invited Member States to provide supplementary information regarding their national laws and experiences. In order to allow interested persons to provide their views, the United States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office have published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on several focused topics related to the provision of access to copyrighted works for blind or other persons with disabilities. Additionally, a public meeting will be held on May 18, 2009 to facilitate a live exchange of views and information on this topic. Federal Register Notice (March 26, 2009) Public Meeting Provisional Agenda and Procedures Request to Participate Submit Comments Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 (202) 707-3000 From mikefry79 at gmail.com Mon Apr 20 22:41:31 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:41:31 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With Disabilities In-Reply-To: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B73C@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> References: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B73C@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904201541y33d5ba87lf2ff149f63c7e4de@mail.gmail.com> I've a feeling that the WIPO will be sympatheic to our desires. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS) wrote: > > Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating > Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With > Disabilities; Notice of Public Meeting > http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ > > Background > > The United States is a Member State of the World Intellectual Property > Organization (WIPO) and an active member of the Standing Committee on > Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). At recent meetings of the SCCR, > WIPO facilitated discussions on the topic of copyright limitations and > exceptions, including limitations and exceptions for "blind, visually > impaired and other reading-disabled persons." At its next meeting (May > 25-29, 2009), the SCCR will continue to consider this topic and will > exchange information and experiences in order to deepen its collective > understanding of the issues. As part of the process, the SCCR is looking > to the copyright limitations and exceptions that are currently available > for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and other > reading-disabled persons around the world, and has invited Member States > to provide supplementary information regarding their national laws and > experiences. > > In order to allow interested persons to provide their views, the United > States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark > Office have published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on several > focused topics related to the provision of access to copyrighted works > for blind or other persons with disabilities. Additionally, a public > meeting will be held on May 18, 2009 to facilitate a live exchange of > views and information on this topic. > > Federal Register Notice > (March 26, 2009) > Public Meeting Provisional Agenda and Procedures Request to Participate > Submit Comments > > Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | > Library of Congress > > U.S. Copyright Office > 101 Independence Ave. S.E. > Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 > (202) 707-3000 > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From JFreeh at nfb.org Tue Apr 21 23:14:51 2009 From: JFreeh at nfb.org (Freeh, Jessica) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:14:51 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Reading Rights Coalition to Participate in LA Times Festival of Books Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 (410) 262-1281 (Cell) cdanielsen at nfb.org Reading Rights Coalition to Participate in LA Times Festival of Books Readers with Print Disabilities Will Urge Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Los Angeles, California (April 21, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition will participate in the LA Times Festival of Books to educate authors about the need to enable text-to-speech for books available for Amazon’s Kindle 2 reading device. The LA Times Festival of Books will take place April 25–26 at the University of California at Los Angeles and the Reading Rights Coalition will be in booth #207 located in zone B. The coalition includes the blind, people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, seniors losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering from strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on the Kindle 2 promises for the first time easy, mainstream access to over 260,000 books. Deborah Kent, who is blind and has written over one hundred books for children and young adults, said: “As both a blind person and a writer, I understand the importance of access to books for people of all ages and using all kinds of reading methods. The inclusion of text-to-speech in e-books for the Kindle 2 will help many young people with print disabilities to gain access to books, thereby ensuring that they will receive an equal education.” Randy Shaw, who will be speaking at the Book Festival about his new book, Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century and is the author of The Activist’s Handbook, said: “As a writer, I see e-books not as a potential threat to my rights but as a way for my work to reach a broader market. Readers who have never purchased books before because they were inaccessible will now join the book-buying public, increasing the revenue and reach of writers on every subject and in every literary genre.” Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The issue of text-to-speech in e-books for the Kindle 2 is not one of copyrights but of civil rights. The Reading Rights Coalition stands for the principle that when an individual has lawfully purchased an e-book, he or she should be able to read it in whatever medium is most suitable for him or her. This principle advances the work of writers rather than taking rights away from them, and it allows people for whom reading was either an impossibility or a chore to join the mainstream of society. We hope to persuade our friends in the literary community that it is in their best interest to make their books available with text-to-speech, but in any event we will not stop our campaign until everyone has access to e-books.” For more information about the Reading Rights Coalition, please visit www.readingrights.org. To sign our petition, go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read. If you are an author who supports our cause, please send your contact information to readingrights at nfb.org. From lfeingold1 at earthlink.net Thu Apr 23 20:45:40 2009 From: lfeingold1 at earthlink.net (Lainey Feingold) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:45:40 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] New web accessibility and tactile point of sale announcement Message-ID: please distribute as appropriate Dear colleagues: Staples announced today that it has agreed to make its web site accessible to people with disabilities and to install tactile keypads at flat screen pos devices. This announcement is the result of the 34th Agreement reached without litigation using the Structured Negotiations process. 11 of those agreements require accessible websites. Details of the Staples announcement below. A list of all agreements reached with the Structured Negotiations process, including web agreements with Bank of America, Rite-Aid and the three U.S. credit reporting agencies, can be found at: http:// lflegal.com/negotiations/#agreements Staples agrees to web access / tactile point of sale devices Staples, the world's largest office products company, announced today that it will be designing its website to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines issued by the World Wide Web consortium. Staples has also agreed to install tactile keypads at its point of sale devices so that people who have difficulty reading information on a touchscreen do not have to disclose their PIN and other confidential information. Staples worked with the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and its Massachusetts and California affiliates through the Structured Negotiations process. Lainey Feingold and Linda Dardarian represented the organizations. The press release is available at: http://lflegal.com/2009/04/staples-press/ The full settlement agreement is posted at: http://lflegal.com/2009/04/staples-settlement-agreement/ Lainey Feingold Law Office of Lainey Feingold http://LFLegal.com 510.548.5062 LF at LFLegal.com From m1receive at rfbd.org Tue Apr 28 01:27:53 2009 From: m1receive at rfbd.org (RFB&D Member Update) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:27:53 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Introducing downloadable AudioPlus! Message-ID: RFB&D members banner Click here to view this email as a web page Now RFB&D’s AudioPlus® DAISY books are just a download away! Dear Member, Formerly available on CD only, RFB&D’s AudioPlus books offer the variable speed, bookmarking and navigational features you count on and are now downloadable. No worries about CD mailings, storage or returns. All of our 50,000 books are now available to you in downloadable DAISY format. Getting started is easy! Simply visit the AudioPlus support website or call 800-221-4792 for further details and assistance. Plus, expanded 24/7 service and support We are delighted to inform you that we are moving to 24/7 member service and support. Now, RFB&D provides you direct and instant access to our products, educator tools and member services and support. RFB&D is committed to providing you with the same excellent service you have come to expect at www.rfbd.org, by contacting custserv at rfbd.org or calling member services at 800-221-4792. We look forward to continue serving your future needs. Sincerely, RFB&D This is a commercial message. If you would prefer not to receive further announcements from RFB&D, please click on the following link. Unsubscribe -PVTL:enUS: QjFRBFpoBnAJ++t2JgJGzs- © 2009, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, Incorporated. All rights reserved. 20 Roszel Road, Princeton, NJ 08540 Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic®, RFB&D®, AudioPlus®, Learning Through Listening®, the Heart and Headphones design, and all trademarks and service marks are owned by Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, Incorporated. From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Apr 29 00:23:32 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:23:32 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice Message-ID: ________________________________ From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:12 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice ________________________________ From: Hunter, Sue [mailto:Sue.Hunter at usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:26 PM To: mike at imba.com; Mikediv201 at aol.com; minorities at abanet.org; mjain at gdblegal.com; mlorenzo at graycary.com; nawl at nawl.org; ncai at ncai.org; nedy at wyjlaw.com; newmedia at ja.org; Neysas at dnfsb.gov; Maurer, Patricia; nijc at aol.com; nlove at opd.state.md.us; nmcconnell at jackscamp.com; noconnell at tabinc.org; noryrp at cox.net; nromulus at gmail.com; ntb at boglechang.com; ocaaba at cox.net; omanager at lawyerscomm.org; palsd at hotmail.com; patel at fr.com; pchanster at yahoo.com; pchapman at koonz.com; pgrewal at daycasebeer.com; pkim at lordbissell.com; Maurer, Patricia; pmorrison at state.wv.us; poppy.johnston at unlv.edu; president at abaw.org; president at adc.org; president at apabala.org; president at blackwomenlawyersla.org; president at dominicanbarassociation.org; president at mabl.org; president at msba.org; president at phillybarristers.org; president at sabasc.org; president at southasianbar.org Subject: FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice To learn more about our attorneys and what they like most about working at DOJ, please visit our attorney profiles at, http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/profiles.htm, and the video clips of our attorneys and interns available at https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/ads/jobsatdojoarm/index.jsp We encourage you to share this email with interested colleagues and peers. If you no longer wish to receive these periodic email announcements, please respond to this email address and ask to be removed from our mailing list. Thank you. Current Department of Justice Attorney Vacancies * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS The closing date for this announcement is May 8, 2009. Date posted: 04-24-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS / GS-12 ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER OIP-09-001 This position is open until filled, but applications must be received no later than May 15, 2009. Date posted: 04-24-2009 * APPELLATE ATTORNEYS, GS-13 THROUGH GS-15 CIVIL DIVISION, APPELLATE STAFF WASHINGTON, DC These positions are open until filled, but no later than May 4, 2009. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL SENIOR COUNSEL (SL) All applications must be received no later than April 29, 2009. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY/ GS-12 TO GS-14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, TORTS BRANCH OFFICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND SPECIALIZED TORTS Position is open until filled. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEY (GS-12 to GS-15) CIVIL DIVISION, TORTS BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LITIGATION Applications must be received by close of business or postmarked (only if mailed) on or by May 15, 2009. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW LOS FRESNOS, TX VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0051 Applications received after May 19, 2009, will not be considered. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW ELOY, AZ VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0050 Applications received after May 19, 2009, will not be considered. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * TRIAL ATTORNEY (GS-0905-13/14/15) DOMESTIC SECURITY SECTION WASHINGTON, DC VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-DSS-014 Applications for this announcement must be received by July 20, 2009. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEY, GS-15 This announcement closes on May 04, 2009. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CONSOLIDATED LEGAL CENTER METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY-ADVISOR GS-905-12/13 This position is open until filled, but no later than May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-17-2009 * ATTORNEY-ADVISOR / GS-0905/13 TO GS-0905/14 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JUSTICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL WASHINGTON, D.C. This position is open until filled; however, resumes should be fax-ed or postmarked by May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-17-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION OFFICE OF OVERSEAS PROSECUTORIAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY / GS-14 to GS-15 (Active Response Corps) VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-OPDAT-013 Applications will be accepted until filled. Date posted: 04-17-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. TRUSTEE'S OFFICE -- ORLANDO, FL TRIAL ATTORNEY Applications must be postmarked by the closing date of May 14, 2009 and will be accepted up to five calendar days after the closing date. Date posted: 04-16-2009 * TRIAL ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION WASHINGTON, D.C. VACANCY ANNOUCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-CCIPS-012 Applications must be postmarked by May 16, 2009. Date posted: 04-15-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 09-WDNY-004 Applications will be accepted until the position is filled, with a first cut-off date of April 30, 2009. Selection may be made from those applications received by April 30, 2009. Date posted: 04-15-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION OFFICE OF OVERSEAS PROSECUTORIAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY / GS-14 to GS-15 Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Date posted: 04-15-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (CRIMINAL) UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION (BALTIMORE) ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-MD-12 The announcement will close on May 6, 2009, therefore, resumes, cover letters and transcripts must be e-mailed or received by the closing date. Date posted: 04-14-2009 The purpose of this email is to advise potential interested persons of employment opportunities at the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of this information. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information. -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From dkent5817 at worldnet.att.net Wed Apr 29 18:43:40 2009 From: dkent5817 at worldnet.att.net (Deborah Kent Stein) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:43:40 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Looking for Stories about Inspiring Individuals Message-ID: Hi, Dave, Please post this to the NFB lists. It might be an opportunity for one or more Federationists to receive some well-deserved recognition and to spread the word about the abilities and achievements of blind people. Thanks! Debbie _______________ Looking for Stories about Inspiring Individuals Who do you know that deserves recognition for their efforts, sacrifices, and service to others? We are compiling stories in an upcoming book about individuals whose selfless devotion and accomplishments are inspiring, and whose enduring commitment is making this world a better place. Please tell us: · What did this person accomplish or is currently doing that you feel has made a difference for the better? · Was there a specific incident or turning point that compelled him or her to take action? · Is there anything else that you can tell us that makes him/her exceptional or unique? YOUR INFORMATION: Name: Email address: Phone: YOUR NOMINEE’S INFORMATION: Name: Email address: Phone: Website: The deadline to send us information is June 1, 2009. We hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Katie Rountree russtree at aol.com and Jody Feagan jodyville at yahoo.com Jody Feagan Founder/Director San Miguel Writers' Conference & Workshops www.sanmiguelworkshops.com US Phone: 323/306/4068 Local # in San Miguel de Allende (Mexico): 152-0478 From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 00:37:46 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:37:46 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371C45@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> References: <1146423434.1444691238519116668.JavaMail.root@sz0094a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371C45@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: <49d2b756.1cbc720a.571b.3e61@mx.google.com> Hi Craig, And now iTunes has at least some competition from Amazon's digital music store. All the downloads from amazon are DRM-free, so people could certainly burn as many copies of a CD as they want. But this hasn't been a huge problem for people so far. Apparently, the ability to pay a reasonable price an dbuy only the songs you want (though you do get a discount if you buy an entire album) encourages a lot of people to handle music downloads in a legal manner. I wonder if we'll eventually see something like this for books. Angie -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of craig.borne at dot.gov Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:10 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought Hi Craig, One major difference I see is that a library book is never owned by the patron. It is merely borrowed. On the other hand, the patron who purchases the electronic book on the Kindle is purchasing the same privileages as one who purchases a hard copy of the book, yet that purchase, though promising ownership of the book, is severely limited as to the portability of that book, which is not the case with a hard bound book. My impression of the article's focus was that we are indeed heading into a great technological age, but we also seem to be giving up certain privileages along the way. ITunes is another great example: I can purchase an entire albumn of music, but I am limited in how I want to listen to that music. I am also limited in allowing my neighbor to borrow the albumn to decide whether or not he is interested in purchasing it for himself (I am not suggesting any copying of the albumn in this example). Craig Craig Borne NHTSA/DOT (202) 493-0627 craig.borne at dot.gov -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Craig R. Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:05 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought Dave, Heady thoughts indeed. But isn't Ms. Walsh a little too alarmist? How, after all, is a digitalized book on a Kindle Reader significantly different in this respect from a borrowed library book? Thanks in any event for posting the essay. Regards. Craig ----- David B Andrews wrote: > With all the discussion about the Kindle, and what it permits, and > doesn't permit, I thought this might be of interest to some. > > David Andrews > > > Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought > > By Emily Walshe > The Christian Science Monitor > from the March 18, 2009 edition > <http://www.csmonitor.com/200 9/0318/p09s01-coop.html> > > Brookville, N.Y. - All you really need to know about > the dangers of digital commodification you learned in > kindergarten. > > Think back. Remember swapping your baloney sandwich for > Jell-o pudding? Now, imagine handing over your sandwich > and getting just a spoon. > > That's one trade you'd never make again. > > Yet that's just what millions of Americans are doing > every day when they read "books" on Kindle, Amazon's e- > reading device. In our rush to adopt new technologies, > we have too readily surrendered ownership in favor of > its twisted sister, access. > > Web 2.0 and its culture of collaboration supposedly > unleashed a sharing society. But we can share only what > we own. And as more and more content gets digitized, > commercialized, and monopolized, our cultural integrity > is threatened. The free and balanced flow of > information that gives shape to democratic society is > jeopardized. > > For now, though, Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. > Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want > it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds > away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display > ... looks and reads like real paper." > > But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or > share your books - because you don't own them. You can > download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult > to read anything that is not routed through Amazon > first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access > to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a > library, because there is no public investment. It's > like taking an interest-only mortgage out on > intellectual property. > > If our flailing economy is to teach us anything, it > might be that an on-demand world of universal access > (with words like lease, licensure, and liquidity) gets > us into trouble. Amazon and other e-media aggregators > know that digital text is the irrational exuberance of > the day, and so are seizing the opportunity to codify, > commodify, and control access for tomorrow. But access > doesn't "look and read" like printed paper at all - > just ask any forlorn investor. Access is useless > currency. > > Why is this important? Because Kindle is the kind of > technology that challenges media freedom and restricts > media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William > Leach calls "the landscape of the temporary": a hyper > mobile and rootless society that prefers access to > ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers > of selective censorship and control. > > Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to > lock in its library, raises critical questions about > the nature of property and identity in digital culture. > Culture plays a large role - in some ways, larger than > government - in shaping who we are as individuals in a > society. The First Amendment protects our right to > participate in the production of that culture. The > widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly > every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, > to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big- > time threat to free expression and assembly. > > When Facebook, for example, proposed revisions to its > terms of service last month - claiming ownership of > user profiles and personal data - the successful > backlash it spawned caused complex (even existential) > ideas about property, identity, and capitulation to > bubble up: Is my Facebook profile the essence of who I > am? If so, who owns me? > > The hallmark of a constitutionally governed society, > after all, is the acknowledgment that we are the > authors of our own experience. In an Internet age, this > is manifest not only in published works, but also an > ever-evolving host of user-generated content (Twitter, > Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). If service providers > lay claim to digital content now, how will it all end? > > Print may be dying, but the idea of print would be the > more critical demise: the idea that there needs to be a > record - an artifact of permanence, residence, and > posterity - that is independent of some well-appointed > thingamajig in order to be seen, touched, understood, > or wholly possessed. > > "You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture," > Ray Bradbury once said. "Just get people to stop > reading them." > > Access equals control. In this case, it is control over > what is read and what is not; what is referenced and > what is overlooked; what is retained and what is > deleted; what is and what seems to be. > > To kindle, we must remember, is to set fire to. The > combustible power of this device (and others like it) > lies in their quiet but constant claim to intangible, > algorithmic capital. What the Kindle should be igniting > is serious debate on the fundamental, inalienable right > to property in a digital age - and clarifying what's > yours, mine, and ours. > > It should strike a match against the winner-take-all > casino economies that this kind of technology > engenders; revitalize American libraries and other > social institutions in their quest to preserve the > doctrines of fair use and first sale (which allow for > free and lawful sharing); and finally, spark Americans > to consider the extent to which they are handing over > their baloney sandwich for a plastic spoon. > > Like a lot of people, I'm a sucker for a good book. But > not at the expense of freedom, or foreclosure of > thought. > > > Emily Walshe is a librarian and professor at Long > Island University in New York. > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mar.cra%40comc ast.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 dot.gov _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma il.com From dandrews at visi.com Wed Apr 1 01:01:45 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:01:45 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Enhances and Expands Newspaper Service for the Blind Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind (410) 659-9314, extension 2330 (410) 262-1281 (Cell) cdanielsen at nfb.org National Federation of the Blind Enhances and Expands Newspaper Service for the Blind NFB-NEWSLINE® Online Offers Blind Individuals More Options for Accessing the News Baltimore, Maryland (March 31, 2009): NFB-NEWSLINE®, the largest electronic newspaper service in the world for blind and print-disabled Americans, is pleased to announce the launch of NFB-NEWSLINE® Online (www.nfbnewslineonline.org). Through NFB-NEWSLINE® Online’s groundbreaking features, subscribers can enjoy both an enhanced experience in reading the news and dramatically increased flexibility in how they choose to access their favorite publication’s content. Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The NFB-NEWSLINE® service was created so that blind people could benefit from independent access to information on world news and hometown events in the same way that our sighted colleagues can. The new features offered by NFB-NEWSLINE® Online are an extension of this service’s ability to allow independent and flexible access to news content by the blind. I am very proud of the increased choice and convenience that initiatives like Web News on Demand and NFB-NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket provide to NFB-NEWSLINE® subscribers.” NFB-NEWSLINE®, which began operation in 1995, offers over 275 newspapers and magazines as well as TV listings to over 65,000 subscribers through a standard touch-tone telephone. With the exciting launch of NFB-NEWSLINE® Online, subscribers also now have unequaled access and unrivaled flexibility in how they read their favorite publications. Two new initiatives have been designed to enhance the subscriber’s experience: Web News on Demand and NFB-NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket. Through the easy-to-use Web News on Demand feature, subscribers can, for the first time ever, visit a secure Web site that offers a customizable reading experience and the ability to send entire publications, particular sections, or single articles to their e-mail inbox. NFB- NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket is a dynamic software application that a subscriber installs on his or her computer. Through an Internet connection, this software automatically downloads the publications of the subscriber’s choice to his or her portable digital talking book player (such as the Victor Reader Stream or Icon/Braille+). Jerry Moreno, a retired social worker from North Carolina, said: “I love being able to get my favorite papers onto my digital talking book player in such an easy and quick way! NFB-NEWSLINE® In Your Pocket does it all for me, so that I can go about my morning routine and by the time I’m done my papers are loaded and ready for me to read along with my cup of coffee.” David DeNotaris, director of Bureau of Blindness & Visual Services with the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, said: “As a husband, father, avid sports fan, and busy professional, I particularly appreciate the fact that Web News on Demand allows me to access relevant local, national, and international news quickly, simply, and independently.” To experience the groundbreaking features of NFB-NEWSLINE® Online, please visit www.nfbnewslineonline.org. For further information please write to swhite at nfb.org or call (866) 504-7300. ### About the National Federation of the Blind With more than 50,000 members, the National Federation of the Blind is the largest and most influential membership organization of blind people in the United States. The NFB improves blind people's lives through advocacy, education, research, technology, and programs encouraging independence and self-confidence. It is the leading force in the blindness field today and the voice of the nation's blind. In January 2004 the NFB opened the National Federation of the Blind Jernigan Institute, the first research and training center in the United States for the blind led by the blind. From joramsey at cox.net Wed Apr 1 02:51:30 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:51:30 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Greetings Rod, I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text- to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >> that is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>> Smyth ; Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>> able to read e- books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>> electronic formats, people with print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>> efforts of this coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>> books available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>> is outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>> people with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>> information and knowledge, without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>> cognitive disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>> mission of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>> wants the right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>> cornerstone of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>> at work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>> Bazelon Center for Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 1 05:09:03 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:09:03 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought In-Reply-To: <5E3AA80EBBD94D86A8F493533B534922@Scorpio13> References: <1146423434.1444691238519116668.JavaMail.root@sz0094a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net><61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371C45@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> <5E3AA80EBBD94D86A8F493533B534922@Scorpio13> Message-ID: <045B7B63CB2640D2AB4AF04030410A7D@spike> this is why we need to be pushing for stronger regulations and enforcement regarding product accessibility. This should be no different then adopting product safety standards. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Danielsen" To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought >I read another blog post from writer Corry Doctorow today indicating this > same problem: we do not own what we think we own. Doctorow in effect asked > his readers to put themselves in the position of the purchaser of a Kindle > 2. When the purchaser bought the device, it was advertised as having the > ability to read e-books aloud. But when Amazon makes the technical changes > that allow authors and publishers to disable their books, the Kindle 2 > will > not work as advertised at least some of the time. Amazon will probably > coerce the purchaser into accepting this change by requiring that he or > she > download the firmware making this modification in order to be permitted to > purchase more e-books. Nowadays the devices we purchase can turn on us, > without warning and with no input from us, simply because the device > manufacturer, under pressure from some faction or other, makes a firmware > modification that causes an advertised feature to disappear or become > severely restricted. Authors, Doctorow suggested, should be the last > people > to make themselves party to such a reading device--a device that controls > how the reader can use content at the whim of third parties. > > I'll forward the original post to this list if I can find it, since > Doctorow > expressed the problem better than me and also made some very coherent > arguments about why the Authors Guild is wrong about text-to-speech. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of craig.borne at dot.gov > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:10 PM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought > > Hi Craig, > > One major difference I see is that a library book is never owned by the > patron. It is merely borrowed. > > On the other hand, the patron who purchases the electronic book on the > Kindle is purchasing the same privileages as one who purchases a hard > copy of the book, yet that purchase, though promising ownership of the > book, is severely limited as to the portability of that book, which is > not the case with a hard bound book. > > My impression of the article's focus was that we are indeed heading into > a great technological age, but we also seem to be giving up certain > privileages along the way. ITunes is another great example: I can > purchase an entire albumn of music, but I am limited in how I want to > listen to that music. I am also limited in allowing my neighbor to > borrow the albumn to decide whether or not he is interested in > purchasing it for himself (I am not suggesting any copying of the albumn > in this example). > > Craig > > Craig Borne > NHTSA/DOT > (202) 493-0627 > craig.borne at dot.gov > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of Craig R. Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:05 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought > > Dave, > > Heady thoughts indeed. But isn't Ms. Walsh a little too alarmist? > How, after all, is a digitalized book on a Kindle Reader significantly > different in this respect from a borrowed library book? Thanks in any > event for posting the essay. Regards. > > Craig > ----- David B Andrews wrote: >> With all the discussion about the Kindle, and what it permits, and >> doesn't permit, I thought this might be of interest to some. >> >> David Andrews >> >> >> Kindle E-Reader: A Trojan Horse for Free Thought >> >> By Emily Walshe >> The Christian Science Monitor >> from the March 18, 2009 edition >> > <http://www.csmonitor.com/200 > 9/0318/p09s01-coop.html> >> >> Brookville, N.Y. - All you really need to know about >> the dangers of digital commodification you learned in >> kindergarten. >> >> Think back. Remember swapping your baloney sandwich for >> Jell-o pudding? Now, imagine handing over your sandwich >> and getting just a spoon. >> >> That's one trade you'd never make again. >> >> Yet that's just what millions of Americans are doing >> every day when they read "books" on Kindle, Amazon's e- >> reading device. In our rush to adopt new technologies, >> we have too readily surrendered ownership in favor of >> its twisted sister, access. >> >> Web 2.0 and its culture of collaboration supposedly >> unleashed a sharing society. But we can share only what >> we own. And as more and more content gets digitized, >> commercialized, and monopolized, our cultural integrity >> is threatened. The free and balanced flow of >> information that gives shape to democratic society is >> jeopardized. >> >> For now, though, Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. >> Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want >> it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds >> away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display >> ... looks and reads like real paper." >> >> But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or >> share your books - because you don't own them. You can >> download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult >> to read anything that is not routed through Amazon >> first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access >> to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a >> library, because there is no public investment. It's >> like taking an interest-only mortgage out on >> intellectual property. >> >> If our flailing economy is to teach us anything, it >> might be that an on-demand world of universal access >> (with words like lease, licensure, and liquidity) gets >> us into trouble. Amazon and other e-media aggregators >> know that digital text is the irrational exuberance of >> the day, and so are seizing the opportunity to codify, >> commodify, and control access for tomorrow. But access >> doesn't "look and read" like printed paper at all - >> just ask any forlorn investor. Access is useless >> currency. >> >> Why is this important? Because Kindle is the kind of >> technology that challenges media freedom and restricts >> media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William >> Leach calls "the landscape of the temporary": a hyper >> mobile and rootless society that prefers access to >> ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers >> of selective censorship and control. >> >> Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to >> lock in its library, raises critical questions about >> the nature of property and identity in digital culture. >> Culture plays a large role - in some ways, larger than >> government - in shaping who we are as individuals in a >> society. The First Amendment protects our right to >> participate in the production of that culture. The >> widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly >> every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, >> to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big- >> time threat to free expression and assembly. >> >> When Facebook, for example, proposed revisions to its >> terms of service last month - claiming ownership of >> user profiles and personal data - the successful >> backlash it spawned caused complex (even existential) >> ideas about property, identity, and capitulation to >> bubble up: Is my Facebook profile the essence of who I >> am? If so, who owns me? >> >> The hallmark of a constitutionally governed society, >> after all, is the acknowledgment that we are the >> authors of our own experience. In an Internet age, this >> is manifest not only in published works, but also an >> ever-evolving host of user-generated content (Twitter, >> Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). If service providers >> lay claim to digital content now, how will it all end? >> >> Print may be dying, but the idea of print would be the >> more critical demise: the idea that there needs to be a >> record - an artifact of permanence, residence, and >> posterity - that is independent of some well-appointed >> thingamajig in order to be seen, touched, understood, >> or wholly possessed. >> >> "You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture," >> Ray Bradbury once said. "Just get people to stop >> reading them." >> >> Access equals control. In this case, it is control over >> what is read and what is not; what is referenced and >> what is overlooked; what is retained and what is >> deleted; what is and what seems to be. >> >> To kindle, we must remember, is to set fire to. The >> combustible power of this device (and others like it) >> lies in their quiet but constant claim to intangible, >> algorithmic capital. What the Kindle should be igniting >> is serious debate on the fundamental, inalienable right >> to property in a digital age - and clarifying what's >> yours, mine, and ours. >> >> It should strike a match against the winner-take-all >> casino economies that this kind of technology >> engenders; revitalize American libraries and other >> social institutions in their quest to preserve the >> doctrines of fair use and first sale (which allow for >> free and lawful sharing); and finally, spark Americans >> to consider the extent to which they are handing over >> their baloney sandwich for a plastic spoon. >> >> Like a lot of people, I'm a sucker for a good book. But >> not at the expense of freedom, or foreclosure of >> thought. >> >> >> Emily Walshe is a librarian and professor at Long >> Island University in New York. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mar.cra%40comc > ast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 > dot.gov > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From mworkman at ualberta.ca Wed Apr 1 05:12:18 2009 From: mworkman at ualberta.ca (mworkman at ualberta.ca) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 1 05:28:18 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:28:18 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The currency ruling is not going any higher as the Treasury Department decided not to appeal it. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Greetings Rod, I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text- to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >> that is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>> Smyth ; Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>> able to read e- books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>> electronic formats, people with print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>> efforts of this coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>> books available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>> is outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>> people with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>> information and knowledge, without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>> cognitive disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>> mission of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>> wants the right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>> cornerstone of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>> at work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>> Bazelon Center for Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Wed Apr 1 09:32:00 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:32:00 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Mark, A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're legally right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what happened, but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such a contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. I buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, that would be an entirely different matter. In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will eventually equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From joramsey at cox.net Wed Apr 1 09:32:23 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:32:23 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <440DF2F4E2C441C19BCAFAFFC6A80572@noneeb869fea9a> Well Chuck, That is subject to change and if they do appeal it will be overturned and in my humble opinion, rightfully so. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:28 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books The currency ruling is not going any higher as the Treasury Department decided not to appeal it. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Greetings Rod, I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text- to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >> that is at best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a >> bookshare situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon >> loses its character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to >> Allow Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>> text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>> Smyth ; Christine G. Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don >>>> Galloway ; Donna Wood ; Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside the Authors Guild headquarters in New >>>> York City at 31 East 32nd Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>> able to read e- books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under >>>> pressure from the Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>> electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the >>>> first time in history the opportunity to enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>> efforts of this coalition. Although much rhetoric is made about >>>> potential obstacles and problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>> books available to tens of thousands of individuals who are blind >>>> or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>> is outrageous when a technology device shuts out people with all >>>> kinds of disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have long dreamed of a world in which books and media >>>> are available to us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>> people with disabilities being left out of education, employment, >>>> and the societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>> information and knowledge, without delay or additional expense. >>>> Authors and publishers surely must share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>> cognitive disabilities that impact their ability to acquire >>>> information with their eyes only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>> mission of ICDRI supports the removal of barriers in electronic and >>>> information technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly mobile society, flexibility in access to content >>>> improves the quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>> wants the right to be seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to >>>> change the technology of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>> cornerstone of education and democracy. New technologies must >>>> serve individuals with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>> at work on making the device's navigational features accessible to >>>> the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>> Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, >>>> Digital Accessible Information System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglob al.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Wed Apr 1 10:21:23 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:21:23 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Cory Doctorow: Authors have lost the plot in Kindle battle Message-ID: <3E894B21ECC14A369D7C30DD97886CB9@Scorpio13> Cory Doctorow, The Guardian March 31, 2009 Authors have lost the plot in Kindle battle http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/31/cory-doctorow-kindle Amazon's Kindle 2 text-to-speech feature is not so much violating authors' copyright but rather basic consumer rights The Amazon Kindle 2's release in February was attended by much fanfare and controversy: Kindle customers were delighted to discover that Amazon had upgraded the Kindle's feature-set so that it could use a credible text-to-speech synthesiser to read the books aloud. This set off the Authors Guild (an organisation that is also on record as opposing making books searchable through Google, and making used books available through Amazon), who claimed that Amazon was in violation of copyright, since only the rightsholder could authorise an "audiobook adaptation" of a book. As a point of law, I think that the Authors Guild is just wrong here, for the obvious reasons that: 1. It's not an infringement for a Kindle owner to use technology privately to modify a copyrighted work. If you own a painting, you can take a photo of it to carry around in your wallet - without paying the painter any extra. You can rip your CDs at home without the musician's permission. And you can use a technology to convert an ebook to a text-to-speech audiobook in your home without paying the author or getting his or her permission. The question gets murkier if we're talking about selling or giving away those photos, MP3s, and audio editions, but that's not what the Guild objects to - they say that the conversion itself infringes copyright. 2. Even if I'm wrong and it is an infringement to convert an ebook to a text-to-speech reading, Amazon's hands are clean, because the infringer is the person who presses the "read aloud" button - that is, the Kindle owner. Xerox doesn't have to make photocopiers that only copy public domain works. Apple doesn't have to make a version of iTunes that only rips CDs you own, and rejects ones you've borrowed off your mates. Microsoft can ship Windows without making sure that the files in the file-system don't infringe on copyright. The Mozilla Foundation can give away versions of Firefox, even though the browser can just as handily be used to download infringing material as non- infringing material. But ultimately, the legality of the feature is irrelevant - as is the nonsensical discussion about whether the Kindle's text-to-speech is (or will someday be) as good as a commercial, human-generated audiobook (the answers being, "No," and "The day that artificial intelligence gives us perfect Kindle readings, we'll have bigger fish to fry than audiobook rights"). The reason it's irrelevant is that Amazon wants to get licenses from members of the Authors Guild in order to sell their books in the Kindle store. And when Amazon goes to those members, they can simply say, "No, I won't let you sell my books because the Kindle has a text-to-speech capability and I don't like it." No need to go into bizarre, long- winded speculations about whether copyright law requires Amazon to build copyright enforcement into its devices, or whether Jeff Bezos's crack team of AI wizards at Amazon are about to unleash an army of superintelligent artificial voice-actors, sandwiched within the Kindle's slender chassis. The Authors Guild can simply say: "We advise our members to withhold licenses from the Kindle store because we think the Kindle format is bad for our business." Now, I happen to disagree with that position because I don't think that text-to-speech is a substitute for audiobooks for the majority of listeners, and because the value of text-to-speech is such that people will buy enough ebooks to offset any losses from substitution, and, most importantly, authors who oppose this feature look like grasping, greedy jerks and will alienate their readers. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong, but the important thing is, we don't need new theories about copyright law to test the proposition. The existing, totally non-controversial aspect of copyright law that says, "Amazon can't publish and sell my book without my permission" covers the territory nicely. But while we were all running our mouths about the plausibility of the singularity emerging from Amazon's text-to-speech R&D, a much juicier issue was escaping our notice: it is technically possible for Amazon to switch off the text-to-speech feature for some or all books. That's a hell of a thing, isn't it? Now that Amazon has agreed with the Authors Guild that text-to-speech will only be switched on for authors who sign a contract permitting it, we should all be goggling in amazement at the idea that this can be accomplished. After all, the Kindle customers who've already received their units, bought devices that were advertised as "capable of reading Kindle books aloud", not "reading some Kindle books aloud". The only ways that Amazon could accomplish this is: 1. If they had anticipated this outcome and secretly enabled this feature before shipping the Kindles - effectively engaging in false advertising, or; 2. If they can force you to downgrade your Kindle to remove the feature (possibly by ending your ongoing access to the Kindle store, or even by terminating your access to your existing Kindle books). Neither of these should inspire confidence in the Kindle as a long- term device. Dropping $359 (£251) on a device whose features are subject to the outcomes of ongoing negotiations to which you are not a party is, frankly, nuts. Would you buy a car if it was known that your air-conditioner and stereo system could be remotely disabled? Or if we suddenly discovered that the manufacturer could remotely lock you out of your boot in order to assuage some pressure group who'd rather you no longer be allowed to carry parcels around? It's one thing for next year's model to ship without the fantastic stereo system but it's another thing entirely for the manufacturer to rip it out of your dashboard after you've bought it. If I were running the Authors Guild, this would be my number one issue: we can't afford to allow our books to be used to lure readers into purchasing devices that can turn against them. Because whatever bad feelings arise from this, some of them will surely be visited upon us. Novelists know that a gun on the mantelpiece in act one is apt to go off by the third act. If we want to talk about potential outcomes for Amazon, then one in which the company disappears, changes hands, or loses its mind should get far more consideration from us than the possibility that it will mastermind major technological breakthroughs in machine-speech synthesis. And on the day that Amazon goes crazy, goes under, or goes to the dogs, our readers - the people whose long-term goodwill we depend on to earn our livings - face the possibility of having their Kindles arbitrarily downgraded, refeatured, or otherwise modified to attack them and the books they've bought from us. If I were running the Authors Guild, I'd be sounding the alarm to my members to license their ebooks only for formats and devices that give our readers - our customers - a fair deal that makes them glad to have supported us. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From johnrsheehan at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 10:39:56 2009 From: johnrsheehan at yahoo.com (John Sheehan) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in the first place)? Seems difficult to sustain their argument.   Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ Xavier Society for the Blind Office 212 473-7800 Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. ________________________________ From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material  to a friend.  When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy.  In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission.  Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission.  The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice.  I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS.  And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think.  I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to.  But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest.  If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument  suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such  an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question.  You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...".  If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population.  However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts.  Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation.  I am afraid that this listserv  might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >>  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities.  This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals.  They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m.  The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology.  Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information.  As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books.  This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity.  This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities.  AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access.  New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time.  We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation.  We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense.  Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision.  Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody.  Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively.  This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said:  "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access.  ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history.  We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on.  Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language.  In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard.  By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more.  By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy.  New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them.  Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.  In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yahoo.com From angie at mpmail.net Wed Apr 1 12:01:04 2009 From: angie at mpmail.net (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:01:04 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that created a copy of a program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an additional "copy" being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a "copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently violates performance rights. Angie On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Marc: >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai >l.com >> >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.net From everett at zufelt.ca Wed Apr 1 12:59:13 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:59:13 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <92EF0782-50C8-49D4-B59F-FF5F043FC9AE@zufelt.ca> Good morning, I do not have an answer to your question. However, I do have a question of my own, as I am unfamiliar with U.S. copyright law. Is a copyright holder permitted to license their work for specific purposes? If so, how specific can the author be regarding the license within current copyright law? Is it fair to argue that an author has the right to license their work to be read on the screen of a specific device, and that it is not to be used in combination with technology, on that or any other device, that would allow for the work to be read aloud, without an additional license fee? A somewhat unrelated licensing issue is in the case of Apple v. Psystar. Psystar purchases retail versions of the Apple OS X operating system and installs it on their clone computers which they then sell. Apple claims that the OS X license agreement limits the use of OS X to Apple hardware. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9991572-56.html Thanks, Everett On 1-Apr-09, at 7:39 AM, John Sheehan wrote: > My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for > over twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put > forward and on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating > their copyright by having my computer read it aloud? You do not need > to be visually impaired or registered with any agency to have access > to that software. If someone else is in the room with me - does that > increase the offense (if one exists in the first place)? > > Seems difficult to sustain their argument. > > Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ > Xavier Society for the Blind > Office 212 473-7800 > Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by > searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com > - powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the > difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is > the > misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are > against > TTS capability on the Kindle. > > Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted > material to a > friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of > his book, > he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the > publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go > ahead > and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead > and make > an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons > with a > print disability, but you do have to register to have access to > RFB&D books. > > The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the > Kindle > is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates > copyright > to make it available without their permission, just like it would be > if > Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the > copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing > to do > with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > > Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between > a human > being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've > also heard > some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would > probably be > surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is > reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader > will be > increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but > perhaps > close enough. > > The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally > unfounded as > you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if > their team > of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's > probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the > opposing > side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend > the > protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me > as > important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one > side wasn't > really being represented in this case. > > Best, > > Marc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening > to books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so > they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense > when a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this > argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible > to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This > machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to > prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way > interferes with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it > would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that > this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that > because blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where > someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also > constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation > certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because > unlike the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; > they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to > the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious > violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here > cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these > books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use > their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user > downloads a book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; > however, when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, > transfers them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different > situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the > two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing > copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the > other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point > is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in > fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an > exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, > exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a > violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, > and then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and > completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your > disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the > distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution > of > copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not > adhear to > the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do > with you > getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these > materials. > Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any > kind. No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this > device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached > conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by > allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with > some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. > By asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in > the shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. > Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > to Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted > books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, > Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, > Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability > information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with > audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it >> exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>>> text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the >> strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human >>>> rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, >>>>> which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon >>>>> Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech >>>>> on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to >>>>> read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the >>>>> Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and >>>>> societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton >>>>> Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books >>>>> become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>>> (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, >>>>> and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild >>>>> to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical >>>>> in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who >>>>> rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why >>>>> the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, >>>>> the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources >>>>> on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International >>>>> Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com >> > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > . > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > . > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yahoo.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.ca From mworkman at ualberta.ca Wed Apr 1 15:42:36 2009 From: mworkman at ualberta.ca (mworkman at ualberta.ca) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:42:36 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Message-ID: That is helpful Chris. Regarding why Amazon backed down, we don't really know. Your point is well taken that it could have had nothing to do with the legal foundation of the arguments of the authors's guild. But regarding your second point, I'm still a little puzzled. I see a difference between creating your own audio copy in the privacy of your home, which would constitute fair use, and selling an unauthorized audio copy, which is what the authors's guild is accusing Amazon of doing. So if the quality of the audio reproduction isn't the issue, as you stated below, then this implies that you agree that Amazon is selling an audio copy of the work along side the print copy. Think of it this way, you download the print copy, and you can simply press play, and it begins reading allowed. It certainly seems to function like an audio copy if you ignore the lesser quality. To me, selling an unauthorized audio copy of a work is distinct from creating your own audio copy under fair use. It is equivalent to a publisher putting out a paper back when they only have permission to put out a hard cover copy. You can go ahead and copy the hard cover and make it feel like a paper back on your own, under fair use, but this is not the same as the publisher selling you both formats when they aren't authorized to do so. I think we agree that it would be wrong for Amazon to hier a bunch of readers and sell audio copies of an author's works to audible without the author's permission, so unless you want to argue that TTS doesn't count as an audio copy for some set of reasons, which you seem to back away from in your post below, then why isn't it equally wrong for Amazon to sell an audio copy through the Kindle without the authors's permission? I don't want to come across as someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing. I would love to have access to Amazon's collection, and I would prefer not to have to register with Amazon in order to get it. I support the NFB's efforts to make this happen. I just can't help but thinking that the authors's have a legitimate argument. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:32 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Mark, A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're legally right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what happened, but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such a contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. I buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, that would be an entirely different matter. In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will eventually equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity. This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca From chatter8712 at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 16:31:46 2009 From: chatter8712 at gmail.com (Shane D) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:31:46 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Message-ID: <7556b95a0904010931j3b14c316od2ea8248ad8d33e1@mail.gmail.com> So would you claim that Jaws for Windows or Window Eyes should be paying a license fee to all copyright holders in America, because their TTS provides the ability to read aloud their printed work? On 4/1/09, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: > That is helpful Chris. Regarding why Amazon backed down, we don't really > know. Your point is well taken that it could have had nothing to do with > the legal foundation of the arguments of the authors's guild. > > But regarding your second point, I'm still a little puzzled. I see a > difference between creating your own audio copy in the privacy of your home, > which would constitute fair use, and selling an unauthorized audio copy, > which is what the authors's guild is accusing Amazon of doing. So if the > quality of the audio reproduction isn't the issue, as you stated below, then > this implies that you agree that Amazon is selling an audio copy of the work > along side the print copy. Think of it this way, you download the print > copy, and you can simply press play, and it begins reading allowed. It > certainly seems to function like an audio copy if you ignore the lesser > quality. To me, selling an unauthorized audio copy of a work is distinct > from creating your own audio copy under fair use. It is equivalent to a > publisher putting out a paper back when they only have permission to put out > a hard cover copy. You can go ahead and copy the hard cover and make it > feel like a paper back on your own, under fair use, but this is not the same > as the publisher selling you both formats when they aren't authorized to do > so. > > I think we agree that it would be wrong for Amazon to hier a bunch of > readers and sell audio copies of an author's works to audible without the > author's permission, so unless you want to argue that TTS doesn't count as > an audio copy for some set of reasons, which you seem to back away from in > your post below, then why isn't it equally wrong for Amazon to sell an audio > copy through the Kindle without the authors's permission? > > I don't want to come across as someone who is arguing for the sake of > arguing. I would love to have access to Amazon's collection, and I would > prefer not to have to register with Amazon in order to get it. I support > the NFB's efforts to make this happen. I just can't help but thinking that > the authors's have a legitimate argument. > > Best, > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Chris Danielsen > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:32 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Mark, > > A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back > down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or > not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to > withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change > its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're legally > right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what happened, > but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the > authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright > protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the > author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's > contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such a > contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book > without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never > been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have > it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very > good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. I > buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or > partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance > that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not > violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my > home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the > author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, > that would be an entirely different matter. > > In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. > Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will eventually > equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. > Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the > difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the > misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against > TTS capability on the Kindle. > > Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a > friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, > he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the > publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead > and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make > an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a > print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. > > The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle > is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright > to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if > Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the > copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do > with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > > Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human > being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard > some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be > surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is > reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be > increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps > close enough. > > The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as > you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team > of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's > probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing > side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the > protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as > important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't > really being represented in this case. > > Best, > > Marc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis >  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your > disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the > distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of > copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to > the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you > getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. > Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis >  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted > books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, > Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, > Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability > information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with > audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com >> > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmail.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek From mikefry79 at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 17:03:56 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:03:56 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> References: <379003B0AB66452DAB673CB13D448898@Scorpio13> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904011003t565107e9tb5efa5b4b7c0a0d3@mail.gmail.com> Yea Marc, I don't know man. You raise some good points but I still think you're giving the Guild to much credit. Angie and Chris make some great points. In addition to their arguments, it really irks me that the Guild is obstructing epistemological (technical) progress. An invention has been created that will truly improve the quality of blind peoples lives. The Guild is obstructing our access to this invention. The Guilds actions, in part, will undoubtedly bully people with disabilities into buying a more expensive form of media. The Guild will extort as much money as they can out of the weaker disabled community then through their arms up in surrender and say it's ok to use the software because undoubtedly pirated version of it will be rampid. Thus the Guilds position is unsustainable, which makes it even more immoral. This is different than a lot of other things. This isn't a Conservative v. liberal issue or a free market v. regulations issue. This really is about preventing the incorporation of an existing invention into a device that will improve the human condition. It's analogous to the American Medical Association opposing mandatory seat belts in cars since seat belts reduce hospital profits because they minimize injuries. Here, the only difference is that the victim of the Guilds stance is a weak minority, the text disabled community. People in the general public don't think about us, so they don't care about us. The Guilds actions will only affect us, not the general public. The general public would never opt to listen to text-2-speech software over reading since it is far less enjoyable because it is read by a monotone robot. This is a reason the Guild thinks their actions are OK, it will only affect us. One day, the text-2-speech may sound like a human reading but it doesn't right now and even if it did that is not the same as a human reading. That's the point, it is not the same. Maybe text-2-speech technology will eventually replace human read audiobooks but that's not our problem. The Guild should not be making our lives worse by preventing the incorporation of simple technology. Finally, I hope you're wrong Marc about this not being a legal slam dunk. Equity and fairness demand that this software be incorporated with no strings attached. Whether the law will support this, I don't know, but I hope that it does. On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Chris Danielsen wrote: > Mark, > > A couple of things. First, it is entirely possible that Amazon would back > down regardless of whether the Guild's arguments were legally founded or > not. All it would take is enough authors or publishers threatening to > withdraw licensing of their content for the Kindle if Amazon did not change > its position. When your business model is threatened, whether you're > legally > right becomes less important to you. I do not know if this is what > happened, > but it certainly could have. Secondly, your statement of the merits of the > authors Guild's argument only goes so far. The reason for copyright > protection is to prevent a third party from getting benefits from the > author's work without sharing those benefits with the author. Author's > contracts withhold audio rights (if indeed they do; I have never seen such > a > contract) so that the publisher can't sell an audio version of a book > without paying the author. But the withholding of audio rights has never > been construed to mean that a private individual who owns a book can't have > it read aloud. Let's say I happened to be married to or live with a very > good voice actor--maybe even someone who records audio books for a living. > I > buy a book, and one night, in order to entertain ourselves, my spouse or > partner starts reading the book aloud. I'm probably getting a performance > that's as good as any available as a commercial audio book, but I am not > violating the author's copyright; I'm being read to in the privacy of my > home, and no third party is benefitting monetarily without paying the > author. Now, if my voice actor friend wanted to make a tape and sell it, > that would be an entirely different matter. > > In other words, the issue here isn't the quality of the audio reproduction. > Whether or not the Authors Guild is right in saying that TTS will > eventually > equal or surpass human speech, their copyright argument is still wrong. > Reading aloud in private is a fair use, period, end of discussion. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:12 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the > difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the > misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against > TTS capability on the Kindle. > > Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to > a > friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his > book, > he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the > publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead > and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and > make > an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a > print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D > books. > > The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle > is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright > to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if > Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the > copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do > with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > > Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human > being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also > heard > some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be > surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is > reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be > increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps > close enough. > > The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded > as > you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their > team > of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's > probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing > side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the > protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as > important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side > wasn't > really being represented in this case. > > Best, > > Marc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this > argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because > blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where > someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a > book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, > when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers > them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing > copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and > completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your > disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the > distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of > copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to > the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you > getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. > Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached > conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By > asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted > books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, > Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, > Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability > information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with > audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > > Good evening, > > > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > > for profit, a vulnerable minority > >> > >>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like > >>> some kind > >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- > >>> to-speech technology...". > > > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > > like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration > > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > > to information for the text-impaired population. However, the > > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > > the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > > argument on either side of this issue. > > > > Thanks, > > Everett > > > > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > > > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously > >> being > >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that > >> is at > >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare > >> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its > >> character > >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. > >> > >> Rod Alcidonis > >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >> Roger Williams University School of Law > >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >> Bristol, RI 02809 > >> Home: (401) 824-8685 > >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- > >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On > >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt > >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM > >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors > >> to Allow > >> Everyone Access to E-books > >> > >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? > >> > >> Everett > >> > >> > >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: > >> > >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such > >>> a noble > >>> and worthy cause. > >>> > >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights > >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority > >>> of the > >>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind > >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and > >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle > >>> in path > >>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to > >>> exploit > >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too > >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are > >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. > >>> The > >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be > >>> ashamed > >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their > >>> position. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica > >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth > >>>> Rival ; > >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; > >>>> Christine G. > >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; > >>>> Elsie Lamp > >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; > >>>> Gary Ray ; > >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; > >>>> Jennelle > >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John > >>>> Batron ; John > >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; > >>>> Marie > >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; > >>>> Michael > >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; > >>>> Richard > >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; > >>>> Scott > >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; > >>>> Tommy > >>>> Craig > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM > >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone > >>>> Access to > >>>> E-books > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> CONTACT: > >>>> > >>>> Chris Danielsen > >>>> > >>>> Director of Public Relations > >>>> > >>>> National Federation of the Blind > >>>> > >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 > >>>> > >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) > >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow > >>>> Everyone Access to E-books > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which > >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the > >>>> threatened removal > >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 > >>>> outside > >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd > >>>> Street on > >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the > >>>> blind, > >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, > >>>> seniors > >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering > >>>> from > >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on > >>>> the > >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to > >>>> over 245,000 > >>>> books. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on > >>>> February 9, > >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- > >>>> books > >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the > >>>> Authors > >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and > >>>> publishers the > >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of > >>>> their > >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, > >>>> said: > >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech > >>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances > >>>> and more > >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with > >>>> print > >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to > >>>> enjoy > >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. > >>>> Authors > >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- > >>>> books on the > >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have > >>>> > >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is > >>>> blatant > >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and > >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal > >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of > >>>> opportunity. This > >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this > >>>> coalition. > >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and > >>>> problems that > >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. > >>>> And why > >>>> create something that prevents it?" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, > >>>> said: > >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an > >>>> innovative > >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books > >>>> available to tens > >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the > >>>> American > >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is > >>>> outrageous when > >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of > >>>> disabilities. AAPD > >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in > >>>> technology, and > >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by > >>>> having to pay > >>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, > >>>> should be > >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." > >>>> > >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the > >>>> American > >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print > >>>> disabilities have > >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to > >>>> us at the > >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility > >>>> for the > >>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- > >>>> to-speech > >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt > >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become > >>>> the > >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people > >>>> with > >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the > >>>> societal > >>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their > >>>> participation > >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) > >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where > >>>> people with > >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, > >>>> without > >>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must > >>>> share this > >>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and > >>>> the > >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to > >>>> reverse > >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively > >>>> encouraging all > >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of > >>>> reading to > >>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is > >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in > >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on > >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with > >>>> autism, > >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive > >>>> disabilities > >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes > >>>> only. I > >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come > >>>> to > >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- > >>>> speech > >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center > >>>> for > >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission > >>>> of ICDRI > >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information > >>>> technology > >>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- > >>>> speech > >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases > >>>> mainstream > >>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the > >>>> Authors > >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would > >>>> be sold > >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only > >>>> > >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also > >>>> helps > >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an > >>>> increasingly > >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the > >>>> quality of > >>>> life for everyone." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: > >>>> "Knowing > >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the > >>>> right to be > >>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology > >>>> of Kindle > >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are > >>>> disabled, or > >>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the > >>>> Authors > >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the > >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for > >>>> Learning > >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone > >>>> of > >>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals > >>>> with > >>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately > >>>> our > >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating > >>>> practices and > >>>> beliefs from the past." > >>>> > >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, > >>>> Amazon > >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at > >>>> work on > >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with > >>>> Disabilities, > >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, > >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for > >>>> Mental > >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information > >>>> System > >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund > >>>> (DREDF), > >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on > >>>> the > >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia > >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, > >>>> Learning > >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning > >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National > >>>> Federation of the > >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In > >>>> addition > >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will > >>>> participate in the > >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ### > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> blindlaw mailing list > >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >>>> for > >>>> blindlaw: > >>>> > >>>> > >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail > >> > >> . > >> com > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blindlaw mailing list > >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >>> for blindlaw: > >>> > >> > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > >> a > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >> blindlaw: > >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > >> > >> . > >> com > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >> for blindlaw: > >> > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com > > > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 3979 (20090331) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From benkarpilow at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 17:09:38 2009 From: benkarpilow at gmail.com (Ben Karpilow) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:09:38 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws Message-ID: Hello all, my name is Benjamin Karpilow. I'm new to this list. I am a 4th year law student at Empire College School of Law in Santa Rosa, California, and will be graduated this June. I have signed up to take the July California Bar Examination. I became visually impaired in 2003 and am not a proficient enough braille user to take the barr exam in this manner. Instead, I'd like to take it using Jaws. Does anyone have any experience taking the bar using Jaws. Also do the bar examiners allow test takers to use Jaws for one section, but not another, i.e., OK for essay questions but not the performance exam. Responses from those who have taken the california bar would be most helpful, but I welcome feedback from past bar takers from all jurisdictions. Regards, Ben Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 From roddj12 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 17:31:32 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:31:32 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I believe it was Mark who suggested that there is some validity in the Guild's argument. Well, in a law school classroom as a hypo, in moot court competitions, I would agree, but not in a court of law. An attorney would have to go at length at the expense of his/her credibility to sustain a favorable ruling on this case. If it were the other way around, as the Guild is containing, the use of readers to read printed text would be prima facie copyright violations. The absurdity goes as so far to suggest that if you read the books with your eyes, it's OK; if you listen to it being read by a computer voice, it is a violation. Well, this is fair use. The computer voice is not retaining the information in a storage device for distribution. Would there be a copyright violation also when Apple allowed their Ipods to be read with speech? The analyses that have gone as deep to validate the Guild's position as an act of performance is in all due respect, beyond the point; rather, it sounds more just like lecturing on copyright laws. And, I am not making an emotional argument here; I do not care about the Kindle; I hate these text to speech voices. If one uses them exclusively, you might eventually lose your ability to utilize the rules of grammar in your writing, in my opinion. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John Sheehan Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:40 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in the first place)? Seems difficult to sustain their argument.   Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ Xavier Society for the Blind Office 212 473-7800 Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. ________________________________ From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against TTS capability on the Kindle. Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material  to a friend.  When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, he holds on to the right to make an audio copy.  In other words, the publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead and make an audio book without permission.  Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the copyright holder's permission.  The authors's position has nothing to do with sharing, or transfering, or security features. Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human being and a human like voice.  I would tend to agree, though I've also heard some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be surpassed by the Kindle's TTS.  And, as technology improves, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps close enough. The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as you seem to think.  I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to.  But hey, it's probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the protest.  If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't really being represented in this case. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Marc: Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's argument  suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to bills. You saw what happened there. Such  an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly would be proper use of the device. Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question.  You say the two cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is exactly what is up for debate. The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly as they must in the case of Bookshare. Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then simply assert X, as you have done. Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shane D Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability information. I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral > since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, > for profit, a vulnerable minority >> >>> of the population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>> some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>> to-speech technology...". > > Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest > words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - > like some kind of inferior animal...".  If the registration > requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration > requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been > seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? > > I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of > all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access > to information for the text-impaired population.  However, the > "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in > the facts.  Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media > distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to > ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, > "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal > argument on either side of this issue. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > >> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >> being >> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >> is at >> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >> situation.  I am afraid that this listserv  might soon loses its >> character >> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >>  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >> to Allow >> Everyone Access to E-books >> >> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >> >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >> >>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>> a noble >>> and worthy cause. >>> >>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> of the >>> population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>> in path >>> of people with disablities.  This obstacle is desgined solely to >>> exploit >>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals.  They are >>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>> The >>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>> ashamed >>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>> position. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>> Rival ; >>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>> Christine G. >>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>> Elsie Lamp >>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>> Gary Ray ; >>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>> Jennelle >>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>> Batron ; John >>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>> Marie >>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>> Michael >>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>> Richard >>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>> Scott >>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>> Tommy >>>> Craig >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>> Access to >>>> E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> >>>> Chris Danielsen >>>> >>>> Director of Public Relations >>>> >>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>> >>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>> >>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>> threatened removal >>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>> outside >>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>> Street on >>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m.  The coalition includes the >>>> blind, >>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>> seniors >>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>> from >>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>> the >>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>> over 245,000 >>>> books. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>> February 9, >>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>> books >>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology.  Under pressure from the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>> publishers the >>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>> their >>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>> technology to read and access information.  As technology advances >>>> and more >>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>> print >>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>> enjoy >>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>> Authors >>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>> books on the >>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>> >>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books.  This is >>>> blatant >>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>> opportunity.  This >>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>> coalition. >>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>> problems that >>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>> And why >>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>> said: >>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>> innovative >>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>> available to tens >>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>> American >>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>> outrageous when >>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>> disabilities.  AAPD >>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>> technology, and >>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>> having to pay >>>> more for access.  New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>> should be >>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>> >>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>> American >>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>> disabilities have >>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>> us at the >>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>> for the >>>> first time.  We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>> to-speech >>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>> >>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>> the >>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>> with >>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>> societal >>>> conversation.  We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>> participation >>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>> people with >>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>> without >>>> delay or additional expense.  Authors and publishers surely must >>>> share this >>>> vision.  Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>> the >>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>> reverse >>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>> encouraging all >>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>> reading to >>>> everybody.  Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively.  This includes students with >>>> autism, >>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>> disabilities >>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>> only. I >>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>> to >>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>> for >>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said:  "The mission >>>> of ICDRI >>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>> technology >>>> and the promotion of equal access.  ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>> speech >>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>> mainstream >>>> access to books for the first time in history.  We question why the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>> be sold >>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on.  Not only >>>> >>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>> helps >>>> persons for whom English is not their native language.  In an >>>> increasingly >>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>> quality of >>>> life for everyone." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>> "Knowing >>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>> right to be >>>> seen, but not heard.  By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>> of Kindle >>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>> disabled, or >>>> make them pay more.  By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>> Authors >>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>> of >>>> education and democracy.  New technologies must serve individuals >>>> with >>>> disabilities, not impede them.  Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>> our >>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>> practices and >>>> beliefs from the past." >>>> >>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>> Amazon >>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>> work on >>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>> Disabilities, >>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>> Mental >>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>> System >>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>> (DREDF), >>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>> the >>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>> Learning >>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>> Federation of the >>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.  In >>>> addition >>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>> participate in the >>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >> >> . >> com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >> a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> >> . >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c a > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai l.com > -- -Shane Website: http://www.blind-geek.com AIM: inhaddict MSN: shane at blind-geek.com Skype: chatter8712 Twitter: blind_geek _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yah oo.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From mworkman at ualberta.ca Wed Apr 1 17:32:59 2009 From: mworkman at ualberta.ca (mworkman at ualberta.ca) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:32:59 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <200904011643.n31GhBNf032570@mail4.srv.ualberta.ca> Message-ID: I read the Doctorow article forwarded by Chris earlier, and it was helpful in clearing up some of my confusion. He seems to be saying that Amazon was not selling an audio book, but merely the capability to make your own audio book. I see the distinction, but it's difficult to see a real difference. So it would be wrong if Amazon allowed you to download an mp3 every time you downloaded the print version, but it's okay that Amazon gives you the ability to create an audio rendering with every download of a print copy. What I find odd is that the two cases might be functionally identical (i.e., you can play, stop, fast forward and rewind exactly the same in both cases), and yet one is allowed and the other is not. A screen reader such as jaws doesn't function like an mp3 rendering of the text. You can go through the text character by character, you can tell it what punctuation to speak allowed, and it's designed to translate any text on the screen into speech, not just books. Without knowing the details of the Kindle's TTS, it seems to function more like an mp3 recording of the work. Can you move through the text character by character? Can you decide what punctuation you want it to speak allowed? I really don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know you can't currently use it to read anything other than the print book, which distinguishes it from a screen reader. So now my question is, if the TTS functions identically with an mp3 recording of the book, then what difference is there between the two? It seems arbitrary to allow one but not the other. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Angie Matney Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:01 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that created a copy of a program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an additional "copy" being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a "copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently violates performance rights. Angie On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Marc: >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gma i >l.com >> >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail . >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail . >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.ne t _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca From everett at zufelt.ca Wed Apr 1 17:41:31 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:41:31 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Cory Doctorow: Authors have lost the plot in Kindle battle In-Reply-To: <3E894B21ECC14A369D7C30DD97886CB9@Scorpio13> References: <3E894B21ECC14A369D7C30DD97886CB9@Scorpio13> Message-ID: Good afternoon, On 1-Apr-09, at 7:21 AM, Chris Danielsen wrote: Cory Doctorow, The Guardian March 31, 2009 > 1. It's not an infringement for a Kindle owner to use technology > privately to modify a copyrighted work. If this is true, it does not answer the question of whether a copyright owner is required to make the work available in a format that is susceptible to modification. But ultimately, the legality of the feature is irrelevant - as is the nonsensical discussion about whether the Kindle's text-to-speech is (or will someday be) as good as a commercial, human-generated audiobook (the answers being, "No," and "The day that artificial intelligence gives us perfect Kindle readings, we'll have bigger fish to fry than audiobook rights"). The reason it's irrelevant is that Amazon wants to get licenses from members of the Authors Guild in order to sell their books in the Kindle store. I do not see how the legality of licensing schemes is irrelevant. Yes, amazon wants to protect its interests and they do this by trying to find a balance that will provide them with the most products to sell to the most number of customers. If the answer to the legal question is that authors and distributors of electronic works cannot prevent their modification, then Amazon does not have to worry about arguing with the copyright holders, although some copyright holders may still choose not to sell their works through Amazon. If the answer is that authors and distributors may restrict the modification of electronic works then Amazon will need to make a decision regarding whether allowing authors to license their works in this fashion will provide them with the greatest return on investment. Thanks, Everett From jackchenonline at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 19:16:21 2009 From: jackchenonline at hotmail.com (Jack Chen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws References: Message-ID: Hello Benjamin I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to use Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a computer for the multistate. jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Karpilow" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > Hello all, my name is Benjamin Karpilow. I'm new to this list. I am a 4th > year law student at Empire College School of Law in Santa Rosa, > California, and will be graduated this June. I have signed up to take the > July California Bar Examination. I became visually impaired in 2003 and am > not a proficient enough braille user to take the barr exam in this manner. > Instead, I'd like to take it using Jaws. Does anyone have any experience > taking the bar using Jaws. Also do the bar examiners allow test takers > to use Jaws for one section, but not another, i.e., OK for essay questions > but not the performance exam. Responses from those who have taken the > california bar would be most helpful, but I welcome feedback from past bar > takers from all jurisdictions. Regards, > > Ben > > > > > > > Benjamin K. Karpilow > benkarpilow at gmail.com > 707-548-8555 > Benjamin K. Karpilow > benkarpilow at gmail.com > 707-548-8555 > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jackchenonline%40hotmail.com > From angie at mpmail.net Wed Apr 1 19:21:35 2009 From: angie at mpmail.net (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:21:35 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Marc, I don't know about controling punctuation, etc., but the Kindle TTS can read web content, like some blogs, apparently. It can also read text files that you create and store on the unit. And even if there is no functional difference, the fact that the device does not create a second copy of a work might be significant. Angie On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:32:59 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >I read the Doctorow article forwarded by Chris earlier, and it was helpful >in clearing up some of my confusion. >He seems to be saying that Amazon was not selling an audio book, but merely >the capability to make your own audio book. I see the distinction, but it's >difficult to see a real difference. So it would be wrong if Amazon allowed >you to download an mp3 every time you downloaded the print version, but it's >okay that Amazon gives you the ability to create an audio rendering with >every download of a print copy. What I find odd is that the two cases might >be functionally identical (i.e., you can play, stop, fast forward and rewind >exactly the same in both cases), and yet one is allowed and the other is >not. >A screen reader such as jaws doesn't function like an mp3 rendering of the >text. You can go through the text character by character, you can tell it >what punctuation to speak allowed, and it's designed to translate any text >on the screen into speech, not just books. Without knowing the details of >the Kindle's TTS, it seems to function more like an mp3 recording of the >work. Can you move through the text character by character? Can you decide >what punctuation you want it to speak allowed? I really don't know the >answers to these questions, but I do know you can't currently use it to read >anything other than the print book, which distinguishes it from a screen >reader. >So now my question is, if the TTS functions identically with an mp3 >recording of the book, then what difference is there between the two? It >seems arbitrary to allow one but not the other. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Angie Matney >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:01 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. >First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent >circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone >else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that >created a copy of a >program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds >actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the >Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an >additional "copy" >being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a >"copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via >TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. >Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently >violates performance rights. >Angie >On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >>You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >>difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >>misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >>TTS capability on the Kindle. >>Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to >a >>friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his >book, >>he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >>publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >>and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and >make >>an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >>print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D >books. >>The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >>is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >>to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >>Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >>copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >>with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >>Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >>being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also >heard >>some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >>surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >>reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >>increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >>close enough. >>The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded >as >>you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their >team >>of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >>probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >>side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >>protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >>important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side >wasn't >>really being represented in this case. >>Best, >>Marc >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >>Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >>toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >>Marc: >>Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >>on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >>conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >>trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >>call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >>purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this >argument >>would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >>violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >>is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >>that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >>the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >>allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >>argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >>argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because >blind >>people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >>bills. You saw what happened there. >>Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where >someone >>borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >>copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >>would be proper use of the device. >>Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >>situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >>just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >>if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >>Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >>Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >>the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >>property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a >book >>from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, >when >>a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers >them, >>and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >>and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >>Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>Roger Williams University School of Law >>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>Bristol, RI 02809 >>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >>Everyone Access to E-books >>Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >>cases are completely different because one involves distributing >copyrighted >>material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >>case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >>exactly what is up for debate. >>The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >>violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >>for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >>as they must in the case of Bookshare. >>Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >>copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >>simply assert X, as you have done. >>Marc >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >>Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >>Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and >completely >>separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >>mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >>Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >>disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >>distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >>copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >>the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >>getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >>Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >>This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >>one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >>already being released with the entity's permission and attached >conditions; >>rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >>people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >>rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By >asking >>for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >>of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >>bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>Roger Williams University School of Law >>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>Bristol, RI 02809 >>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf Of Shane D >>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>Everyone Access to E-books >>Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >>books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >>Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >>Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >>information. >>I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >>taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >>audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >>On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >>> Good evening, >>> >>> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >>> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >>> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> >>>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>>> some kind >>>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>>> to-speech technology...". >>> >>> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >>> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >>> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >>> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >>> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >>> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >>> >>> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >>> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >>> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >>> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >>> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >>> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >>> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >>> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >>> argument on either side of this issue. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >>> >>>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>>> being >>>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>>> is at >>>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>>> character >>>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>>> to Allow >>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>> >>>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>>> >>>> Everett >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>>> a noble >>>>> and worthy cause. >>>>> >>>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>>> of the >>>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>>> in path >>>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>>> exploit >>>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>>> The >>>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>>> ashamed >>>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>>> position. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>>> Rival ; >>>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>>> Christine G. >>>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>>> Jennelle >>>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>>> Batron ; John >>>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>>> Marie >>>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>>> Tommy >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>>> Access to >>>>>> E-books >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CONTACT: >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>>> >>>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>>> >>>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>>> >>>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>>> >>>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>>> threatened removal >>>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>>> outside >>>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>>> Street on >>>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>>> blind, >>>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>>> seniors >>>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>>> from >>>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>>> the >>>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>>> over 245,000 >>>>>> books. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>>> February 9, >>>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>>> books >>>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>>> publishers the >>>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>>> their >>>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>>> said: >>>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>>> and more >>>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>>> print >>>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>>> enjoy >>>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>>> books on the >>>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>>> >>>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>>> blatant >>>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>>> opportunity. This >>>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>>> coalition. >>>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>>> problems that >>>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>>> And why >>>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>>> said: >>>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>>> innovative >>>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>>> available to tens >>>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>>> American >>>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>>> outrageous when >>>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>>> technology, and >>>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>>> having to pay >>>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>>> should be >>>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>>> American >>>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>>> disabilities have >>>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>>> us at the >>>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>>> for the >>>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>>> to-speech >>>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>>> the >>>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>>> with >>>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>>> societal >>>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>>> participation >>>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>>> people with >>>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>>> without >>>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>>> share this >>>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>>> the >>>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>>> reverse >>>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>>> encouraging all >>>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>>> reading to >>>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>>> autism, >>>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>>> disabilities >>>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>>> only. I >>>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>>> to >>>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>>> speech >>>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>>> for >>>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>>> of ICDRI >>>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>>> technology >>>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>>> speech >>>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>>> mainstream >>>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>>> be sold >>>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>>> >>>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>>> helps >>>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>>> increasingly >>>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>>> quality of >>>>>> life for everyone." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>>> "Knowing >>>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>>> right to be >>>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>>> of Kindle >>>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>>> disabled, or >>>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>>> Authors >>>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>>> Learning >>>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>>> of >>>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>>> with >>>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>>> our >>>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>>> practices and >>>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>>> >>>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>>> Amazon >>>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>>> work on >>>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>>> Disabilities, >>>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>>> Mental >>>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>>> System >>>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>>> (DREDF), >>>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>>> the >>>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>>> Learning >>>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>>> Federation of the >>>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>>> addition >>>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>>> participate in the >>>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ### >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>>> for >>>>>> blindlaw: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>>> >>>> . >>>> com >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. >c >>>> a >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>>> >>>> . >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. >c >>a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gma >i >>l.com >>> >>-- >>-Shane >>Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >>AIM: inhaddict >>MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >>Skype: chatter8712 >>Twitter: blind_geek >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >. >>com >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber >t >>a.ca >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >. >>com >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber >t >>a.ca >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.ne >t >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.net From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 20:37:38 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:37:38 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Analysis of 2nd Circuit DVR Decision Message-ID: <49d3d08b.050cc00a.66bf.6ccf@mx.google.com> Here's more information on the DVR case I mentioned earlier. Of course, the situations are distinguishable; but the court found that ha DVR provider was not a direct infringer because the "copy" that was created existed for only 1.2 seconds. It also held that transmitting a program to a consumer was not a public performance. Here's the link, followed by the text. www.drmwatch.com/legal/article.php/37654 Appeals Court Reverses Cablevision DVR Decision August 14, 2008 By Solveig Singleton Several content providers (including Cartoon Network and Disney) sued Cablevision, arguing that the cable company's new remote storage digital video recording (DVR) system violated their copyrights. Last Monday, the Second Circuit ruled that the remote DVR system did not directly violate the copyrights, reversing the lower court ruling of last year. The case will be key in deciding whether remote copying services face liability for direct or for contributory infringement. Cablevision's DVR system functioned, in essence, like a Tivo with a very long wire. As Cablevision sent out programming to subscribers, the remote DVR allowed consumers to select certain programs to record and play back later. The actual copying and storage, though, was done off-premises on systems operated by Cablevision. (Cablevision, of course, had a license to send the programs out to subscribers, and the content providers and Cablevision agreed that the license did not authorize the new remote DVR service). >From the content standpoint, then, someone is making unlicensed copies (setting aside arguments about fair use). but who? Cablevision, or the consumer? The consumer chooses which buttons to push-but Cablevision operates the physical equipment. If Cablevision is the legal actor, Cablevision faces direct liability; but if it is the consumer, Cablevision faces only indirect liability-contributory infringement, as did Grokster. The content companies opted for the argument that Cablevision was directly liable, won in the court below, but lost the appeal. The court below had ruled, first, that Cablevision's remote DVR system violated copyright directly in holding the stream of programming in RAM briefly in the ordinary course of operations. The Second Circuit rejected this; the Copyright Act requires that a copy be "fixed," or embodied in the buffer for more than a transitory period, and Cablevision's system held the data for no more than 1.2 seconds. The Second Circuit next examined the argument that Cablevision should be directly liable for creating the playback copies. Earlier cases involved remote copying over the Internet, the question of whether an ISP would be liable when its system automatically copied a work posted by a customer. The answer then was "no." Cablevision's remote DVR is like the ISP, in that it supplies the system, but doesn't push the button. The Court explained that what mattered was whose volition was exercised in making the copy. Here, the volitional acts were Cablevision's, in designing the system, and the consumers', in pushing the buttons to order a copy be made. The court in this case found an analogy to the VCR persuasive: the key volitional act is the consumers', not Cablevision's. The district court had compared the remote DVR analogous to a copy shop that made copies for professors. The professors supplied the material, and the copy shop copied it; the copy shop was directly liable. Here the Second Circuit again focused on volition. Because the copy shop employed a human being to make the copies, the copy shop had exercised its volition. Cablevision's system responded automatically, and thus did not. But Cablevision also supplies the content, making the choice of programming and licensing it. Is that enough to make a difference? Here the Second Circuit made a judgment call: "This conduct is indeed more proximate to the creation of illegal copying than, say, operating an ISP or opening a copy shop . . . Nonetheless, we do not think it sufficiently proximate to the copying to displace the customers as the person who 'makes' the copies." The court here emphasized that ruling otherwise would blur the line between direct and indirect copyright infringement. Finally, the court considered whether Cablevision "performed" the work for the "public" in playing it back for the consumer. The answer was again no. The work had been copied by a single consumer, and was played back for that single individual at his request. The performance was not to the "public." The bottom line was that Cablevision might be indirectly liable for copyright infringement, but was not directly liable. A number of amici curae had filed briefs below (including this author), either in support of or against liability. Some warned that the lower court's holding Cablevision liable threatened the future of remote storage, the Internet, innovation, or the balance of the copyright system as a whole. But, if anything, the opinion supports the contrary view, that Cablevision's involvement with the system is significantly different from that of an ISP or from the equipment maker in the landmark Sony v. Universal ("Betamax") case that established consumers' rights to time-shift video in the first place.. Other amici warned that a failure to hold Comcast liable undermined incentives to negotiate further distribution licenses with content producers. This point, perhaps, is addressed by the Second Circuit's hints that Cablevision might have run into more trouble against a different result against a theory of contributory infringement. On the whole, the case's language is less of a victory for the "tech" side than the bare result suggests. Remote DVR has escaped the frying pan, to find itself uncomfortably close to the Grokster fire. Recall that the 2005 Supreme Court opinion extended liability for indirect infringement to those who induce infringement by others. Last week's decision leaves room for another content owner to press that theory in future litigation. Solveig Singleton is a lawyer, an adjunct with the Convergence Law Institute and an adjunct fellow with the Institute for Policy Innovation. She is the author of an amicus brief filed in this case on behalf of the Progress and Freedom Foundation. From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 20:44:01 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:44:01 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] More on Cable Case Message-ID: <49d3d209.0609c00a.79fb.73d3@mx.google.com> Here’s an article with more up-to-date information. SCOTUS may hear this case this fall. http://www.arentfox.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=legalUpdateDisp &content_id=1928 le 2/2/2009 On January 12, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States asked the Department of Justice to weigh in on a case that will decide whether a new digital home recording technology violates US copyright laws. The case is Cable News Network, Inc., et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc., et al. (No. 08-448), in which CNN and other content providers sued New York-area cable provider Cablevision and its subsidiary, claiming that Cablevision’s next-generation “Remote Storage-Digital Video Recorder” (RS-DVR) service violates the copyrights of the TV networks and film studios. The outcome of this case could change the future of home video recording, and may help define key concepts in copyright law as applied to the digital age. Cablevision’s new RS-DVR service would offer customers a new, less expensive way to record television broadcasts for later viewing. Instead of downloading a TV program through a set-top box and storing that copy in the consumer’s own computer memory, the RS-DVR copies TV programs and stores them on Cablevision’s hard drives at a central remote server. Customers then can retrieve their own unique copies of recorded programming from the remote server. Cablevision is promoting this new technology as a cheaper home recording alternative because it does not require the installation of expensive individual set-top DVR boxes in customers’ homes. The media industry worries, however, that if this cheaper RS-DVR service becomes readily available, more consumers will use the technology to skip past commercials, potentially leading to a further decrease in advertising revenues for the industry. While CNN and other content providers currently license TV programs to Cablevision, they have not licensed Cablevision to store and re-transmit those programs to users via RS-DVR. The suit arose in 2006, when CNN and other copyright owners sued Cablevision in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Cablevision directly infringes copyrights owned by the TV networks and film studios because the RS-DVR itself copies and then “performs” the copyrighted works without Cablevision’s paying additional licensing fees. Cablevision, by contrast, argues that it is not a direct infringer because it is the consumer, and not Cablevision, who orders copies of and then calls up the protected works for time-shifting. The central legal questions, and the points on which the district court and US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, were: Who is doing the copying, and does transmission of the TV programs constitute a “public” performance? The content providers argue, and the district court held in 2007, that Cablevision was doing the copying, once by making unauthorized temporary “buffer” copies of all shows, and a second time by making permanent copies on its central computer to stream to customers who request those shows. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 478 F.Supp.2d 607 (SDNY 2007). The district court further held that the RS-DVR infringes the public performance right by then transmitting those copies to consumers’ televisions upon demand, thereby making copyrighted works available to the public (even though members of the public may receive the transmissions at separate places at separate times) without the additional required licenses. In light of all that Cablevision does to design and operate the RS-DVR service, maintain exclusive physical control of and access to the central server, and supply the copyrighted content, the district court found that Cablevision, and not end-users, was responsible for the illegal copying and public performances. Accordingly, the district court enjoined Cablevision from proceeding with its RS-DVR service without obtaining the proper licenses. The Second Circuit reversed in August 2008, holding that customers, not Cablevision, do the copying, and that Cablevision therefore cannot be a direct infringer. The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008). According to Cablevision and the appeals court, the temporary “buffer” copies initially created, which exist for only 1.2 seconds before they are overwritten by new data, are not “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit [the work] to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration” and thus do not qualify as “fixed” copies under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. Regarding the permanent copies made, the Second Circuit found that the end-user, not Cablevision, decides what programs will be copied and transmitted for later viewing. The RS-DVR merely automatically reacts to customers’ orders, the court found, and thus plays no volitional role in direct copying. According to the court, Cablevision would at most be secondarily liable for infringement, but the plaintiffs did not raise the issue of contributory liability. Essentially, the court likened the RS-DVR to a user pushing the “record” button on a VCR, which the Supreme Court held in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), constitutes legal consumer time-shifting and is non-infringing fair use. Finally, on the question of whether the RS-DVR violates the copyright owners’ public performance right, the Second Circuit found that no “public” performance occurs because a copy saved by an individual subscriber can only be accessed by that single subscriber. The Second Circuit therefore found that Cablevision was not liable for direct copyright infringement. If the government advises the Supreme Court to take up this case, it likely would not come before the Court until the 2009 fall term. CNN and the other broadcast networks and film studios are currently awaiting the Court’s approval of their petition for certiorari. On certiorari, the Supreme Court would have before it several key questions fundamental to copyright law: (1) What is a “fixed” copy?; (2) What does it mean “to perform the copyrighted work publicly”?; and, in general, (3) How does the Copyright Act apply to new technologies that allow for the automated and on-demand access to and delivery of copyrighted content? With such high-stakes questions at issue, various music companies, the Screen Actors Guild, and several professional sports leagues have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the television networks. Arent Fox is monitoring this case for further developments. For more information, please contact: Anthony V. Lupo lupo.anthony at arentfox.com 202.857.6353 Loni J. Sherwin sherwin.loni at arentfox.com 202.715.8581 From Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov Wed Apr 1 21:13:57 2009 From: Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov (Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS)) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:13:57 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B5F9@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> Hi Ben, and welcome to the list! I took the bar exam in California so many years ago that I cannot help on questions of taking it with modern technology. However, a number of folks on this list do have background on the matter, and will no doubt be glad to provide you with input. Tim Ford -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ben Karpilow Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:10 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws Hello all, my name is Benjamin Karpilow. I'm new to this list. I am a 4th year law student at Empire College School of Law in Santa Rosa, California, and will be graduated this June. I have signed up to take the July California Bar Examination. I became visually impaired in 2003 and am not a proficient enough braille user to take the barr exam in this manner. Instead, I'd like to take it using Jaws. Does anyone have any experience taking the bar using Jaws. Also do the bar examiners allow test takers to use Jaws for one section, but not another, i.e., OK for essay questions but not the performance exam. Responses from those who have taken the california bar would be most helpful, but I welcome feedback from past bar takers from all jurisdictions. Regards, Ben Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 Benjamin K. Karpilow benkarpilow at gmail.com 707-548-8555 _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/tim.ford%40cdp h.ca.gov From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 1 21:32:32 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:32:32 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <440DF2F4E2C441C19BCAFAFFC6A80572@noneeb869fea9a> References: <440DF2F4E2C441C19BCAFAFFC6A80572@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <5CD5D2E63B1B4895852205C81656FF55@spike> Actually, I agree with you and hope it does change. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:32 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > Well Chuck, > That is subject to change and if they do appeal it will be overturned and > in > my humble opinion, rightfully so. > Take care, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:28 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > The currency ruling is not going any higher as the Treasury Department > decided not to appeal it. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights CoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Greetings Rod, > I am not going to go into your argument about the Kindle and Bookshare, > however, as many on this list will likely agree, that currency ruling is > going to be overturned when and if it gets up to the US court. Take care, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Marc: > > Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to > books > on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my > conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is > trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they > call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when > a > purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this > argument > would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to > violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This > machine > is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove > that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes > with > the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would > allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this > argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's > argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because > blind > people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to > bills. You saw what happened there. > > Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where > someone > borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute > copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation > certainly > would be proper use of the device. > > Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike > the > situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are > just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; > if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. > Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. > Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these > books; > the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their > property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a > book > from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, > when > a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers > them, > and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, > and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two > cases are completely different because one involves distributing > copyrighted > material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other > case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is > exactly what is up for debate. > > The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a > violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an > exception > for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly > as they must in the case of Bookshare. > > Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of > copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and > then > simply assert X, as you have done. > > Marc > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On > Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow > Everyone Access to E-books > > > Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and > completely > separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like > mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. > Unlike > as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your disability > because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the distribution of > copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of copyrighted books > would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to the requirement > that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you getting books > nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. Think of > bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > > This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. > No > one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is > already being released with the entity's permission and attached > conditions; > rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by > allowing > people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some > rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By > asking > for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the > shoes > of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. > Unlike > bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Shane D > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to > Allow > Everyone Access to E-books > > Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted books. > The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, Bookshare is > required by law to varify our disabilities. However, Bookshare does not > share with the publisher our disability information. > > I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild > taking > a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with audio. > Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > > On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>>> text- to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement >>> that is at best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a >>> bookshare situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon >>> loses its character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to >>> Allow Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some >>>> kind of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative >>>> text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene >>>>> Smyth ; Christine G. Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don >>>>> Galloway ; Donna Wood ; Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for >>>>> the Amazon Kindle 2 outside the Authors Guild headquarters in New >>>>> York City at 31 East 32nd Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be >>>>> able to read e- books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under >>>>> pressure from the Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized >>>>> text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As >>>>> technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to >>>>> electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the >>>>> first time in history the opportunity to enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the >>>>> efforts of this coalition. Although much rhetoric is made about >>>>> potential obstacles and problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative technological solution that would make regular print >>>>> books available to tens of thousands of individuals who are blind >>>>> or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It >>>>> is outrageous when a technology device shuts out people with all >>>>> kinds of disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have long dreamed of a world in which books and media >>>>> are available to us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more >>>>> people with disabilities being left out of education, employment, >>>>> and the societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world >>>>> where people with print disabilities have equal access to >>>>> information and knowledge, without delay or additional expense. >>>>> Authors and publishers surely must share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely >>>>> on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students >>>>> with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and >>>>> cognitive disabilities that impact their ability to acquire >>>>> information with their eyes only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The >>>>> mission of ICDRI supports the removal of barriers in electronic and >>>>> information technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly mobile society, flexibility in access to content >>>>> improves the quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild >>>>> wants the right to be seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to >>>>> change the technology of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the >>>>> cornerstone of education and democracy. New technologies must >>>>> serve individuals with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently >>>>> at work on making the device's navigational features accessible to >>>>> the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation >>>>> for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, >>>>> Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, >>>>> Digital Accessible Information System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c > a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai > l.com >> > > > -- > -Shane > Website: http://www.blind-geek.com > AIM: inhaddict > MSN: shane at blind-geek.com > Skype: chatter8712 > Twitter: blind_geek > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert > a.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglob > al.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Thu Apr 2 01:57:44 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:57:44 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: References: <200904011643.n31GhBNf032570@mail4.srv.ualberta.ca> Message-ID: <28272888B88C4251B852CB0D23771E18@Scorpio13> I don't think this analogy is exactly right. With an MP3 recording of a book, you have a permanent recording of the entire book. With the Kindle e-book, the book is being read to you on the fly. You can even switch back and forth between reading the book on screen and reading with TTS, and if you press the read aloud button while you're reading on the screen, the speech starts with where you are in the display. If you read for a while and then hit the stop button, the screen starts displaying where the TTS left off. So there are not two separate copies of the book existing at the same time; what is changing is the way the text, which in and of itself is neither visual nor audible, is being interpreted by the device. This is just like using Jaws on a computer; Jaws doesn't create a copy of what's on the screen, it simply represents it in a different way. With the MP3, on the other hand, you have an exact recorded copy of the entire book that could exist independently from the book itself. This isn't true with the TTS, whether or not it reads character by character etc. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:33 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: ReadingRightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books I read the Doctorow article forwarded by Chris earlier, and it was helpful in clearing up some of my confusion. He seems to be saying that Amazon was not selling an audio book, but merely the capability to make your own audio book. I see the distinction, but it's difficult to see a real difference. So it would be wrong if Amazon allowed you to download an mp3 every time you downloaded the print version, but it's okay that Amazon gives you the ability to create an audio rendering with every download of a print copy. What I find odd is that the two cases might be functionally identical (i.e., you can play, stop, fast forward and rewind exactly the same in both cases), and yet one is allowed and the other is not. A screen reader such as jaws doesn't function like an mp3 rendering of the text. You can go through the text character by character, you can tell it what punctuation to speak allowed, and it's designed to translate any text on the screen into speech, not just books. Without knowing the details of the Kindle's TTS, it seems to function more like an mp3 recording of the work. Can you move through the text character by character? Can you decide what punctuation you want it to speak allowed? I really don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know you can't currently use it to read anything other than the print book, which distinguishes it from a screen reader. So now my question is, if the TTS functions identically with an mp3 recording of the book, then what difference is there between the two? It seems arbitrary to allow one but not the other. Best, Marc -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of Angie Matney Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:01 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books I would argue that no copyright violation is involved. First, is the rendering via TTS a derivative work? There was a recent circuit-court decision (sorry, don't remember which circuit; maybe someone else on here can help) concerning DVR's. That court held that a DVR that created a copy of a program that remained in the machine's buffer for something like 1.2 seconds actually did not create a "copy" of the work. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have ramifications for the Kindle situation. Is an additional "copy" being created? I don't understand the technology, but I would imagine that a "copy" is not being created. This differentiates the Kindle rendering via TTS from audiobooks and from Bookshare. Is there a public performance of the work? I don't think that TTS inherently violates performance rights. Angie On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:12:18 -0600, mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote: >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. >Best, >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Marc: >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. >Marc >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt. c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gma i >l.com >> >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail .. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail .. >com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualber t >a.ca >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie%40mpmail.ne t _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert a.ca _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3979 (20090331) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3982 (20090402) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From craig.borne at dot.gov Thu Apr 2 19:32:08 2009 From: craig.borne at dot.gov (craig.borne at dot.gov) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:32:08 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: NHTSA job - up to 177K per year Message-ID: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E371DCC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> ________________________________ From: Trujillo, Rose Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:30 PM To: 'mary.koehler at dc.gov'; 'James.Burke1 at va.gov'; 'evelyn.kaiser at drs.virginia.gov'; 'jmaterkowski at dors.state.md.us'; 'mleedy at montgomeryworks.com'; 'kwest-evans at rehabnetwork.org' Cc: Borne, Craig Subject: NHTSA job - up to 177K per year Importance: High Please pass to your networks for broad dissemination. ________________________________ From: Executive Resources Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:00 PM Subject: SES Vacancy Announcement - NHTSA - Director, Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection Dear Colleagues: This is to notify you of an executive leadership vacancy in my organization. We want to attract a broad pool of diverse candidates from within and outside the government who can bring strong executive skills to the position. The position is located in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Washington, DC. The incumbent will serve as the Director, Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection, under the Associate Administrator for Research & Program Development. The incumbent will provide national leadership in developing, planning, improving, implementing and evaluating traffic safety programs directed toward reducing traffic crashes and fatalities, injuries, and property damage resulting from (1) impaired driving, including improper use of alcohol and drugs, and (2) from the non-usage of safety belts, and child safety restraints. Develops, coordinates, and facilitates the execution of a coherent, integrated program of demonstration, program development, technology development, technical assistance and outreach activities aimed at improving impaired driving and occupant protection programs throughout the country. Provides technical assistance to other NHTSA offices, the States and the public in the areas related to alcohol, drugs, safety belts and child safety restraints. If you are interested and would like to be considered for this challenging position, I urge you to apply under the vacancy announcement which can be obtained from the Office of Personnel Management USAJOBS web link at: http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=80131612&AVSDM=2009%2D03%2 D26+ 00%3A03%3A01&Logo=0&pg=3&jbf574=TD*&lid=17514&FedEmp=N&sort=rv&vw=d&ss=0 &brd =3876&FedPub=Y&caller=/agency_search.asp Please feel free to share the vacancy announcement with candidates in other government agencies and/or the private sector who you know have the necessary skills for this position. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ron Medford NHTSA Acting Deputy Administrator -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NHTSA 09-21 Dir, Impaired Driving and Occup Protection (Final).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 63941 bytes Desc: NHTSA 09-21 Dir, Impaired Driving and Occup Protection (Final).rtf URL: From DFrye at nfb.org Fri Apr 3 21:07:08 2009 From: DFrye at nfb.org (DFrye at nfb.org) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:07:08 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Daniel wants you to take action on "Allow Everyone Access to E-books"! Message-ID: <20090403210704.E7E621BFADB@web10.care2.com> Hello! Daniel Frye has just read and signed the petition: Allow Everyone Access to E-books You can view this petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/3742161 Message from Daniel Frye: ----- Hi, I signed the petition "Allow Everyone Access to E-books". I'm asking you to sign this petition to help us reach our goal of 50,000 signatures. I care deeply about this cause, and I hope you will support our efforts. ----- ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.ThePetitionSite.com! ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2, the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world. www.care2.com From CDanielsen at nfb.org Sat Apr 4 01:55:44 2009 From: CDanielsen at nfb.org (Danielsen, Chris) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:55:44 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Sign the petition to allow everyone access to e-books Message-ID: Dear Fellow Federationists: As many of you know, we are engaged in a campaign to obtain access for the blind and others with print disabilities to e-books available for Amazon's new Kindle 2 e-book reader. The new reader, which Amazon is working to make fully accessible to the blind, has the ability to use text-to-speech to read these e-books aloud; but under pressure from the Authors Guild, Amazon has announced that authors and publishers will be allowed to disable the text-to-speech function. The National Federation of the blind has joined with over twenty other organizations to create the reading Rights Coalition, which has set up an on-line petition to urge the Authors Guild and Amazon to reverse course. Please read and sign the petition here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read Please note: If you are using screen access technology, the first three fields on the form to sign the petition may not be announced. They are, in order: (1) a drop-down menu from which to select your prefix (Mr., Mrs., etc.); (2) an edit field for your first name, and (3) an edit field for your last name. the rest of the fields should announce themselves as you tab to them. If you still have trouble filling out the form, please send the following information to readingrights at nfb.org and we will be happy to sign on your behalf. You will need to send us your name, address, e-mail address, and any personal comments you would like to make about this issue. Thank you so much for your participation in this critically important effort. Sincerely: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind P.S. Once you have signed the petition, please be sure to forward the link to all of the contacts in your address book that you believe will support us in this cause. From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 06:23:01 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:23:01 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <000c01c9b2ef$b2eb4220$18c1c660$@com> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000c01c9b2ef$b2eb4220$18c1c660$@com> Message-ID: <20090404062301.GA59680@yumi.bluecherry.net> Rod, I recall that one of the fun things about Copyright law is that fair use is a justification for Copyright infringement, should such claim be brought. It is not a simple exception to Copyright law. It seems to me, then, that the only way to assert fair use is to be sued for Copyright infringement and hope that your pockets are deep enough to assert the defense successfully. Is my understanding here flawed? Keep in mind, I am L0. Joseph On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:31:32PM -0400, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >I believe it was Mark who suggested that there is some validity in the >Guild's argument. Well, in a law school classroom as a hypo, in moot court >competitions, I would agree, but not in a court of law. An attorney would >have to go at length at the expense of his/her credibility to sustain a >favorable ruling on this case. > > If it were the other way around, as the Guild is containing, the use of >readers to read printed text would be prima facie copyright violations. The >absurdity goes as so far to suggest that if you read the books with your >eyes, it's OK; if you listen to it being read by a computer voice, it is a >violation. Well, this is fair use. The computer voice is not retaining the >information in a storage device for distribution. Would there be a copyright >violation also when Apple allowed their Ipods to be read with speech? > >The analyses that have gone as deep to validate the Guild's position as an >act of performance is in all due respect, beyond the point; rather, it >sounds more just like lecturing on copyright laws. > >And, I am not making an emotional argument here; I do not care about the >Kindle; I hate these text to speech voices. If one uses them exclusively, >you might eventually lose your ability to utilize the rules of grammar in >your writing, in my opinion. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of John Sheehan >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:40 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over >twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and >on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by >having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or >registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else >is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in >the first place)? > >Seems difficult to sustain their argument. >  >Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ >Xavier Society for the Blind >Office 212 473-7800 >Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching >the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - >powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. > > > > >________________________________ >From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. > >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material  to a >friend.  When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy.  In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission.  Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. > >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission.  The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice.  I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS.  And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. > >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think.  I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to.  But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest.  If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. > >Best, > >Marc > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Marc: > >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument  suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. > >Such  an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. > >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question.  You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. > >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. > >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. > >Marc > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. > >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...".  If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population.  However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts.  Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation.  I am afraid that this listserv  might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>>  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population.  Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities.  This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals.  They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m.  The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology.  Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information.  As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books.  This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity.  This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities.  AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access.  New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time.  We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation.  We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense.  Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision.  Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody.  Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively.  This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said:  "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access.  ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history.  We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on.  Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language.  In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard.  By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more.  By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy.  New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them.  Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.  In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai >l.com >> > > >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yah >oo.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com From roddj12 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 4 16:03:44 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:03:44 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books In-Reply-To: <20090404062301.GA59680@yumi.bluecherry.net> References: <391224.42687.qm@web53801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000c01c9b2ef$b2eb4220$18c1c660$@com> <20090404062301.GA59680@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: Joseph: Fair use is a defense to a claim for copyright violations you are right. Exceptions within the law, when applicable, is one of the means you use to mount a defense. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 2:23 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books Rod, I recall that one of the fun things about Copyright law is that fair use is a justification for Copyright infringement, should such claim be brought. It is not a simple exception to Copyright law. It seems to me, then, that the only way to assert fair use is to be sued for Copyright infringement and hope that your pockets are deep enough to assert the defense successfully. Is my understanding here flawed? Keep in mind, I am L0. Joseph On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:31:32PM -0400, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >I believe it was Mark who suggested that there is some validity in the >Guild's argument. Well, in a law school classroom as a hypo, in moot court >competitions, I would agree, but not in a court of law. An attorney would >have to go at length at the expense of his/her credibility to sustain a >favorable ruling on this case. > > If it were the other way around, as the Guild is containing, the use of >readers to read printed text would be prima facie copyright violations. The >absurdity goes as so far to suggest that if you read the books with your >eyes, it's OK; if you listen to it being read by a computer voice, it is a >violation. Well, this is fair use. The computer voice is not retaining the >information in a storage device for distribution. Would there be a copyright >violation also when Apple allowed their Ipods to be read with speech? > >The analyses that have gone as deep to validate the Guild's position as an >act of performance is in all due respect, beyond the point; rather, it >sounds more just like lecturing on copyright laws. > >And, I am not making an emotional argument here; I do not care about the >Kindle; I hate these text to speech voices. If one uses them exclusively, >you might eventually lose your ability to utilize the rules of grammar in >your writing, in my opinion. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of John Sheehan >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:40 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >My computer has been able to read text on the screen to me aloud for over >twenty years. Much of that material is copyrighted, and was put forward and >on the web site for sighted persons. Am I then violating their copyright by >having my computer read it aloud? You do not need to be visually impaired or >registered with any agency to have access to that software. If someone else >is in the room with me - does that increase the offense (if one exists in >the first place)? > >Seems difficult to sustain their argument. > >Fr. John R. Sheehan, SJ >Xavier Society for the Blind >Office 212 473-7800 >Help us raise money for the Xavier Society for the Blind just by searching >the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - >powered by Yahoo! Free for you - and money for us! Thank you. > > > > >________________________________ >From: "mworkman at ualberta.ca" >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12:18 AM >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >You're still question begging with respect to the argument about the >difference between Bookshare and the Kindle, but the bigger issue is the >misrepresentation of the author's position, the reason why they are against >TTS capability on the Kindle. > >Copyright violation is not limited to transfering copyrighted material to a >friend. When an author allows a publisher to make a print copy of his book, >he holds on to the right to make an audio copy. In other words, the >publisher, just because they are able to make a print book, can't go ahead >and make an audio book without permission. Now, RFB&D can go ahead and make >an audio copy any time they want under the exception for persons with a >print disability, but you do have to register to have access to RFB&D books. > >The authors are asserting that the human-like text-to-speech on the Kindle >is close enough to an audio copy of their works that it violates copyright >to make it available without their permission, just like it would be if >Amazon were hiring human readers and selling audio books without the >copyright holder's permission. The authors's position has nothing to do >with sharing, or transfering, or security features. > >Of course, people will argue that there is a big difference between a human >being and a human like voice. I would tend to agree, though I've also heard >some utterly terrible renderings by human readers that would probably be >surpassed by the Kindle's TTS. And, as technology improves, it is >reasonable to assume that the ability to approximate a human reader will be >increased, probably not to the point of indistinguishability, but perhaps >close enough. > >The point is only that the authors's argument is not as legally unfounded as >you seem to think. I suspect Amazon wouldn't have backed down if their team >of well-paid copyright lawyers didn't advise them to. But hey, it's >probably more politically expedient to ignore the merits of the opposing >side's arguments, and if I were in New York, I would totally attend the >protest. If we're debating ideas on this list though, it strikes me as >important to fully articulate both sides of an argument, and one side wasn't >really being represented in this case. > >Best, > >Marc > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:37 PM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Marc: > >Actually, I first argue that there is not a violation by listening to books >on the Kindle, so the entity here has no rights to claim. That's my >conclusion. I think the issue in this situation is that this entity is >trying to assert a right but they don't know what that right is, so they >call it copyright violation. Not many judges would buy this nonsense when a >purchaser cannot even share the books on this device. In fact, this argument >would not go beyond the courthouse. Think about it: it is impossible to >violate the copyright of the entity even if one would want to. This machine >is protected with security features. This entity would have had to prove >that somehow, that by listening to the books, this in a way interferes with >the features of the Kindle and this violates their rights because it would >allow a blind person to start sharing the books. I am confident that this >argument would suffer the same defects that the treasury department's >argument suffered in the currency case, when they argued that because blind >people had access to credit cards, they did not also require access to >bills. You saw what happened there. > >Such an outcome, if it were adopted, would lead to situations where someone >borrows a book, reads it, and give it back to the owner to also constitute >copyright violations. This would be absurd. The current situation certainly >would be proper use of the device. > >Secondly, I argued that this is different from bookshare because unlike the >situation here, bookshare does not have any rights to the books; they are >just distributing them. Keep in mind that this is an exception to the law; >if it did not exist, bookshare's actions would be an obvious violation. >Furthermore, Bookshare can violate copyright laws; the entity here cannot. >Bookshare cannot give permission of any sorts to anyone to use these books; >the entity here could and it has given permission to Amazon to use their >property by putting it on the Kindle. Moreover, when a user downloads a book >from Bookshare, this user can share it and violate copyrights; however, when >a user purchases the Kindle, he/she cannot remove the books, transfers them, >and shares them with his/her friends. These are two different situations, >and as such, they both deserve independent legal analyses. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of mworkman at ualberta.ca >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:53 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors toAllow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Rod, it looks to me like you are begging the question. You say the two >cases are completely different because one involves distributing copyrighted >material under the exception for persons with disabilities, and the other >case does not involve a violation of copyright, but the latter point is >exactly what is up for debate. > >The author's guild is claiming that the TTS on the Kindel is, in fact, a >violation of copyright, which they are prepared to overlook as an exception >for people with print disabilities, provided that people register, exactly >as they must in the case of Bookshare. > >Personally, I don't think that TTS should be construed as a violation of >copyright, but you can't say two cases are different because of X, and then >simply assert X, as you have done. > >Marc > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On >Behalf Of Rod Alcidonis >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:13 AM >To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >toAllow Everyone Access to E-books > > >Folks: this situation and that of bookshare is two different, and completely >separate legal analyses. Let's not continue to mix the two. It is like >mixing apples and oranges just because they are both known as fruits. >Unlike as some have suggested, bookshare is required to verify your >disability because it is a not-for-profit entity engaging in the >distribution of copyrighted books to blind individuals. Distribution of >copyrighted books would constitute a violation had bookshare not adhear to >the requirement that its members are blind. It has nothing to do with you >getting books nearly for free. Bookshare holds no right to these materials. >Think of bookshare and RFBD as an exception to the general rule. > >This situation, however, involves not a copyright violation of any kind. No >one is sharing copyrighted information. The information on this device is >already being released with the entity's permission and attached conditions; >rather, what's at issue here is that the entity is fearful that by allowing >people to listen to books this way, in effect would interfere with some >rights, which we are debating is unclear as to what that right is. By asking >for people to registrer, the entity is seeking to place itself in the shoes >of Bookshare and alike, but remember that it is a commercial entity. Unlike >bookshare, this entity holds the copyrighted content on these devices. > >Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Shane D >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:35 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >Everyone Access to E-books > >Re: Bookshare, we are being given nearly free access to copyrighted >books. The $50/year goes to paying Bookshare's overhead. As such, >Bookshare is required by law to varify our disabilities. However, >Bookshare does not share with the publisher our disability >information. > >I think the best analogy to this situation would be the Authors Guild >taking a cut of Jaws proffit because it enables us to read books with >audio. Bookshare is just a source for getting books. > >On 3/30/09, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> One part of the argument was that: "The Guilds position is immoral >> since it is infringes on human rights and dignity because it exploits, >> for profit, a vulnerable minority >>> >>>> of the population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like >>>> some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and innovative text- >>>> to-speech technology...". >> >> Understandably Bookshare.org is not for profit, however, the strongest >> words in the above citation are related to having to "...register' - >> like some kind of inferior animal...". If the registration >> requirement for one service is acceptable how can the registration >> requirement for a similar, but recognizably different, service been >> seen as treating people like "inferior animals"? >> >> I agree that a method needs to be found to accommodate the needs of >> all involved and to respect all current laws and the right of access >> to information for the text-impaired population. However, the >> "inferior animals" argument does not seem to have much foundation in >> the facts. Perhaps the best solution is to require digital media >> distributors to leave their publications unlocked for all readers, to >> ensure the most open access to information for the text-impaired, >> "inferior animals" does not seem to add any weight to the legal >> argument on either side of this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> On 30-Mar-09, at 9:11 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: >> >>> I can't tell you how much I hate it when a legal issue is seriously >>> being >>> debated on this list and someone comes along with a statement that >>> is at >>> best, uninformed. The current issue is not even close to a bookshare >>> situation. I am afraid that this listserv might soon loses its >>> character >>> as a legal forum for blind legal professionals. Sad. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw- >>> bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> Behalf Of E.J. Zufelt >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:15 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors >>> to Allow >>> Everyone Access to E-books >>> >>> Is it immoral for Bookshare to require registration aswell? >>> >>> Everett >>> >>> >>> On 30-Mar-09, at 2:21 PM, Michael Fry wrote: >>> >>>> It is awesome that so many organizations are coalescing around such >>>> a noble >>>> and worthy cause. >>>> >>>> The Guilds position is immoral since it is infringes on human rights >>>> and dignity because it exploits, for profit, a vulnerable minority >>>> of the >>>> population. Requiring the disabled to 'register' - like some kind >>>> of inferior animal - in order to use new, free, and >>>> innovative text-to-speech technology places an unnecessary obstacle >>>> in path >>>> of people with disablities. This obstacle is desgined solely to >>>> exploit >>>> money from people without the time or inclination or, who are too >>>> embarrassed to register, as a text disabled individuals. They are >>>> attempting to bully extra profits out of people with disabilities. >>>> The >>>> Guild, comprised of enlightened and educated individuals, should be >>>> ashamed >>>> since there is no explanation other than immoral greed for their >>>> position. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Scott C. LaBarre >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Freeh, Jessica >>>>> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Anil Lewis ; Art Schreiber ; Beth >>>>> Rival ; >>>>> Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cathy Jackson ; Charlene Smyth ; >>>>> Christine G. >>>>> Hall ; Daniel Burke ; David Ticchi ; Don Galloway ; Donna Wood ; >>>>> Elsie Lamp >>>>> ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred Schroeder ; Fred Wurtzel ; >>>>> Gary Ray ; >>>>> Gary Wunder ; J.W. Smith ; James Antonacci ; James Broadnax ; >>>>> Jennelle >>>>> Bichler ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Jerree Harris ; Joe Ruffalo ; John >>>>> Batron ; John >>>>> Fritz ; Joyce Scanlan ; Kathy Davis ; Ken Rollman ; Kevan Worley ; >>>>> Marie >>>>> Johnson ; Mary Willows ; Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; >>>>> Michael >>>>> Freeman ; Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; >>>>> Richard >>>>> Bennett ; Richard Gaffney ; Ron Brown ; Ron Gardner ; Sam Gleese ; >>>>> Scott >>>>> LaBarre ; Selena Sundling-Crawford ; Steven Priddle ; Terri Rupp ; >>>>> Tommy >>>>> Craig >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:09 AM >>>>> Subject: Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone >>>>> Access to >>>>> E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONTACT: >>>>> >>>>> Chris Danielsen >>>>> >>>>> Director of Public Relations >>>>> >>>>> National Federation of the Blind >>>>> >>>>> (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 >>>>> >>>>> (410) 262-1281 (Cell) >>>>> cdanielsen at nfb.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow >>>>> Everyone Access to E-books >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which >>>>> represents people who cannot read print, will protest the >>>>> threatened removal >>>>> of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 >>>>> outside >>>>> the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd >>>>> Street on >>>>> April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the >>>>> blind, >>>>> people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, >>>>> seniors >>>>> losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering >>>>> from >>>>> strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on >>>>> the >>>>> Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to >>>>> over 245,000 >>>>> books. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on >>>>> February 9, >>>>> 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e- >>>>> books >>>>> aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and >>>>> publishers the >>>>> ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of >>>>> their >>>>> e-books available for the Kindle 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech >>>>> technology to read and access information. As technology advances >>>>> and more >>>>> books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with >>>>> print >>>>> disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to >>>>> enjoy >>>>> access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. >>>>> Authors >>>>> and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e- >>>>> books on the >>>>> Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have >>>>> >>>>> other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is >>>>> blatant >>>>> discrimination and we will not tolerate it." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and >>>>> Disability (AHEAD), said: "AHEAD envisions educational and societal >>>>> environments that value disability and embody equality of >>>>> opportunity. This >>>>> vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this >>>>> coalition. >>>>> Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and >>>>> problems that >>>>> exist, the basic goal is clear and simple--access for everyone. >>>>> And why >>>>> create something that prevents it?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, >>>>> said: >>>>> "Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an >>>>> innovative >>>>> technological solution that would make regular print books >>>>> available to tens >>>>> of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the >>>>> American >>>>> Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: "It is >>>>> outrageous when >>>>> a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of >>>>> disabilities. AAPD >>>>> works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in >>>>> technology, and >>>>> we don't expect to see people with disabilities singled out by >>>>> having to pay >>>>> more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, >>>>> should be >>>>> available to everyone regardless of disability." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the >>>>> American >>>>> Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print >>>>> disabilities have >>>>> long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to >>>>> us at the >>>>> same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility >>>>> for the >>>>> first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text- >>>>> to-speech >>>>> is simply an alternative means of access to print." >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt >>>>> Institute at Syracuse University, said: "As electronic books become >>>>> the >>>>> norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the >>>>> societal >>>>> conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their >>>>> participation >>>>> and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) >>>>> Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where >>>>> people with >>>>> print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, >>>>> without >>>>> delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must >>>>> share this >>>>> vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and >>>>> the >>>>> opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to >>>>> reverse >>>>> their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively >>>>> encouraging all >>>>> publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of >>>>> reading to >>>>> everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, "Not only is >>>>> text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in >>>>> providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on >>>>> text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with >>>>> autism, >>>>> learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive >>>>> disabilities >>>>> that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes >>>>> only. I >>>>> remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come >>>>> to >>>>> understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> function on their e-books and reconsider their position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center >>>>> for >>>>> Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: "The mission >>>>> of ICDRI >>>>> supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information >>>>> technology >>>>> and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to- >>>>> speech >>>>> functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases >>>>> mainstream >>>>> access to books for the first time in history. We question why the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would >>>>> be sold >>>>> if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only >>>>> >>>>> does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also >>>>> helps >>>>> persons for whom English is not their native language. In an >>>>> increasingly >>>>> mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the >>>>> quality of >>>>> life for everyone." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: >>>>> "Knowing >>>>> full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the >>>>> right to be >>>>> seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology >>>>> of Kindle >>>>> 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are >>>>> disabled, or >>>>> make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the >>>>> Authors >>>>> Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the >>>>> contributions this community has the potential to offer." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone >>>>> of >>>>> education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals >>>>> with >>>>> disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately >>>>> our >>>>> economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating >>>>> practices and >>>>> beliefs from the past." >>>>> >>>>> While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, >>>>> Amazon >>>>> recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at >>>>> work on >>>>> making the device's navigational features accessible to the blind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The coalition includes: American Association of People with >>>>> Disabilities, >>>>> American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, >>>>> Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for >>>>> Mental >>>>> Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information >>>>> System >>>>> (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund >>>>> (DREDF), >>>>> IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on >>>>> the >>>>> Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia >>>>> Association--New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, >>>>> Learning >>>>> Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning >>>>> Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National >>>>> Federation of the >>>>> Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In >>>>> addition >>>>> to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will >>>>> participate in the >>>>> Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for blindlaw: >>>> >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >>> a >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >>> >>> . >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for blindlaw: >>> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.c >a >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/chatter8712%40gmai >l.com >> > > >-- >-Shane >Website: http://www.blind-geek.com >AIM: inhaddict >MSN: shane at blind-geek.com >Skype: chatter8712 >Twitter: blind_geek > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualbert >a.ca > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/johnrsheehan%40yah >oo.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail.com From goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 4 17:11:04 2009 From: goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net (Sarah Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:11:04 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] OT: KNFB Reader Message-ID: <001101c9b548$56ebda60$6601a8c0@computer2> Hi everyone, Sorry for the somewhat off topic post. I'm trying to get info about the KNFB reader and the cell phones it works on. Is there such a list? Or, if anyone has personal experience with it on the Nokia n82 or the 6220, can you please contact me off-list at goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net? Thanks, Sarah Clark From dandrews at visi.com Sat Apr 4 17:29:14 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:29:14 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] OT: KNFB Reader In-Reply-To: <001101c9b548$56ebda60$6601a8c0@computer2> References: <001101c9b548$56ebda60$6601a8c0@computer2> Message-ID: You named the two phones it works on already. For a more in-depth discussion you should join the reader-users list, as this is off topic for this list, http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/reader-users_nfbnet.org Dave At 12:11 PM 4/4/2009, you wrote: >Hi everyone, >Sorry for the somewhat off topic post. >I'm trying to get info about the KNFB reader and the cell phones it >works on. Is there such a list? >Or, if anyone has personal experience with it on the Nokia n82 or >the 6220, can you please contact me off-list at goldflash9 at sbcglobal.net? > >Thanks, >Sarah Clark >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com From everett at zufelt.ca Sun Apr 5 02:46:41 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:46:41 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the Authors Guild... Message-ID: Good evening, I ran across this site today. I think that it is an interesting position, one that I do not agree with, and thought someone here may wish to comment on the content of the site and two linked articles. http://accessiblepublishing.org/why-the-print-disabled-should-thank-the-authors-guild-not-picket-it/ Thanks, Everett From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sun Apr 5 04:37:02 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:37:02 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> Does anyonbe know about this site? From reviewing it it is not clear who maintains it and it sounds like it is coming from the self-perpetuating interests of publishers and copyright holders. There is no obvious contact channels and it appears to be somewhat obscure and suspect. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "E.J. Zufelt" To: Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:46 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... > Good evening, > > I ran across this site today. I think that it is an interesting > position, one that I do not agree with, and thought someone here may wish > to comment on the content of the site and two linked articles. > > http://accessiblepublishing.org/why-the-print-disabled-should-thank-the-authors-guild-not-picket-it/ > > Thanks, > Everett > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From everett at zufelt.ca Sun Apr 5 05:11:29 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 02:11:29 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> Message-ID: <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> Good evening, The following URL provides the contact info for the group that has registered the AccessiblePublishing.org domain. http://who.is/whois/accessiblepublishing.org/ HTH, Everett On 5-Apr-09, at 1:37 AM, wrote: > Does anyonbe know about this site? From reviewing it it is not clear > who maintains it and it sounds like it is coming from the self- > perpetuating interests of publishers and copyright holders. There is > no obvious contact channels and it appears to be somewhat obscure > and suspect. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- From: "E.J. Zufelt" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:46 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the > AuthorsGuild... > > >> Good evening, >> >> I ran across this site today. I think that it is an interesting >> position, one that I do not agree with, and thought someone here >> may wish to comment on the content of the site and two linked >> articles. >> >> http://accessiblepublishing.org/why-the-print-disabled-should-thank-the-authors-guild-not-picket-it/ >> >> Thanks, >> Everett >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> for blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/everett%40zufelt.ca From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 10:51:43 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:51:43 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thank the AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> Message-ID: <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Here's some of what the Center for Accessible Publishing has done in the past: http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2006/proceedings/2715.htm It sounds like this organization's livelihood is threatened by easy access to electronic books, since it exists to be THE source for college students to get books, through cooperation with publishers and protecting their bottom lines at all costs. Bookshare, RFB&D, and even NLS interfere with the organization because publishers don't receive a dime for books accessed in these ways. Joseph On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 02:11:29AM -0300, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > The following URL provides the contact info for the group that has > registered the AccessiblePublishing.org domain. > > http://who.is/whois/accessiblepublishing.org/ > > HTH, > Everett From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 6 04:44:35 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:44:35 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike><6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: it sounds a biyt paternalistic and self-serving to say the least. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... > Here's some of what the Center for Accessible Publishing has done in the > past: > > http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2006/proceedings/2715.htm > > It sounds like this organization's livelihood is threatened by easy access > to electronic books, since it exists to be THE source for college students > to get books, through cooperation with publishers and protecting their > bottom lines at all costs. Bookshare, RFB&D, and even NLS interfere with > the organization because publishers don't receive a dime for books > accessed in these ways. > > Joseph > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 02:11:29AM -0300, E.J. Zufelt wrote: >> Good evening, >> >> The following URL provides the contact info for the group that has >> registered the AccessiblePublishing.org domain. >> >> http://who.is/whois/accessiblepublishing.org/ >> >> HTH, >> Everett > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From b75205 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 05:15:57 2009 From: b75205 at gmail.com (James Pepper) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:15:57 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper From cdanielsen8 at aol.com Mon Apr 6 08:32:44 2009 From: cdanielsen8 at aol.com (Chris Danielsen) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 04:32:44 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike><6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca><20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength. What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright. But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our principles. I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From angie.matney at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 11:17:12 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:17:12 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike><6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca><20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <49d9e4b4.48c3f10a.2554.ffff8e46@mx.google.com> Hi Chris, Good post. I would also like to point out that Jim Fruchterman (sp?) did indeed sign the Reading Rights Coalition Petition. Angie -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength. What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright. But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our principles. I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma il.com From angie.matney at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 11:19:30 2009 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:19:30 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <49d9e53e.85c2f10a.1078.ffffafe3@mx.google.com> Hi James, Actually, it's the authors guild, not publishers, who are objecting. And from what I've seen, the Authors Guild is thought of as extremist by many authors. Some publishers have made blog posts condemning the Authors Guild for its actions. Angie -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma il.com From timandvickie at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 12:10:11 2009 From: timandvickie at hotmail.com (Tim Shaw) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:10:11 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <49d9e53e.85c2f10a.1078.ffffafe3@mx.google.com> References: <76C6569014414651A6568160C6A36160@spike> <6736993E-E5BB-45A4-9F4A-20797BD94193@zufelt.ca> <20090405105143.GB470@yumi.bluecherry.net> <49d9e53e.85c2f10a.1078.ffffafe3@mx.google.com> Message-ID: what i dont understand is if they think the kindle reading the text to us is a copyright violation, isnt everything a normal screen reader reads therefore a copyright violation if its copyrighted material? > From: angie.matney at gmail.com > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:19:30 -0400 > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe AuthorsGuild... > > Hi James, > > Actually, it's the authors guild, not publishers, who are objecting. And > from what I've seen, the Authors Guild is thought of as extremist by many > authors. Some publishers have made blog posts condemning the Authors Guild > for its actions. > > > Angie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of James Pepper > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thankthe > AuthorsGuild... > > The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the > blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He > actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going > to have to deal with the copyright holders. > > Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it > and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and > created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without > receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make > it readable in this format. > > Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in > making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. > > I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll > the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, > they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right > now with sales. > > And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because > the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would > get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. > In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. > > Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had > the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to > be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in > Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to > the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 > regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. > > James Pepper > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gma > il.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 From JMcCarthy at nfb.org Mon Apr 6 14:18:06 2009 From: JMcCarthy at nfb.org (McCarthy, Jim) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:18:06 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7638A85981599142811F69FBB9508B6B26D74C@FPNTEXCBE01.services.local> Though I don't question Mr. Martinengo's expertise, I would clarify a couple of facts. He wrote one report for the state of Maryland that had some impact on getting a college textbook law passed here. College students in Maryland still do not have accessible textbooks. As for Georgia, Mr. Martinengo was hired to create an accessible textbook center to aid state wide access for Georgia's college students. I am not sure how well that project is working but it seems that he has been trying to leave Georgia almost sense he arrived. The center and its procedures may be well in place though. I would also point out that most of the framework in which the access to books issue has played out requires the benevolence of the publishing community. In the k-12 context, publishers must provide electronic files for conversion into formats such as Braille, but there are no penalties if they don't do so. In other contexts, those wanting to provide accessible books request electronic copies from publishers that publishers may or may not provide. There is no way to make them provide these files at all. This means that individuals like Robert Martinengo worry about offending publishers on any level. If publishers are angered, forget about getting files for conversion. I understand that caution but think this is quite a different issue. The Kindle 2 allows users to choose between two methods of content delivery, print to a screen or text to speech. The latter opens huge doors for us because if we can actually get at this content through text to speech, whatever Amazon makes available to the nondisabled public is also made available to us so long as we can pay the book purchase price. I don't ever see the sort of models that Robert Martinengo is working with offering that potential for access. In my view, it would be best for the community if Mr. Martinengo kept his opinions to himself and continued his work. Our success on this issue will result in access to the printed word that would have been hard to imagine 20 or 30 years ago. We might be setting a new access paradigm and Mr. Martinengo's caution will only get in the way. Jim McCarthy -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of strength. What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is violating anyone's copyright. But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public opinion and standing firm on our principles. I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of James Pepper Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should thanktheAuthorsGuild... The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are going to have to deal with the copyright holders. Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and make it readable in this format. Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more content. I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough problems right now with sales. And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or Kindle. James Pepper _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40 aol. com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40nf b.org From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Mon Apr 6 15:28:26 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:28:26 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Registration is Now Open for ABA National Conference on the Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities Message-ID: ________________________________ From: Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law [mailto:cmpdl at abanet.org] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:26 AM To: Nightingale, Noel Subject: Registration is Now Open for ABA National Conference on the Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities If you are having trouble reading this email you may view it as a web page, by clicking here. [http://www.abanet.org/disability/images/2009conferencelogoTRANS.png] Registration now open: register today! This groundbreaking program aims to: encourage large legal employers, particularly corporations and law firms, to sign pledges to promote diversity and inclusion within the workplace with an emphasis on hiring and retaining lawyers with disabilities; develop best practices for promoting disability diversity and inclusion; and identify legal employers and work settings that are models for the legal profession. CLE certification is pending. The Conference is part of the ABA's diversity commitment to open the legal profession to lawyers with disabilities. * Scholarships now available! * Early Bird registration rates available until June 1, 2009. Date: June 15-16, 2009 Location: Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington, DC For more information, visit the Conference's webpage at: http://www.abanet.org/disability/conferences/09conference.shtml For questions, contact Michael J. Stratton at 202-662-1571 (phone) or CMPDL at abanet.org (e-mail). Sponsored by: [http://new.abanet.org/calendar/2nd-National-Conference-on-Employment-of-Lawyers-with-Disabilities/PublishingImages/aba_logo_02_blue_300.jpg] ABA Office of the President [http://www.abanet.org/disability/images/ACCLogoTRANS.png] [http://www.abanet.org/disability/images/MCCALogoTRANS.png] ________________________________ Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA. Update your profile | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy American Bar Association | 321 N Clark | Chicago, IL 60654 | 1-800-285-2221 From plaxo at mx.plaxo.com Mon Apr 6 18:12:22 2009 From: plaxo at mx.plaxo.com (kdb enterprises) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:12:22 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] kdb enterprises added you as a connection on Plaxo Message-ID: Hi blindlaw, kdb enterprises wants to add you as a connection on Plaxo. To accept this connection request, go to: http://www.plaxo.com/invite?i=66210222&k=2060766703&l=en&src=email&et=1&est=nolevels&etv=nnic1b2&el=en Thanks! The Plaxo team More than 20 million people use Plaxo to keep in touch with the people they care about. Don't want to receive emails from Plaxo any more? Go to: http://www.plaxo.com/stop?src=email&et=1&est=nolevels&etv=nnic1b2&el=en&email=blindlaw%40nfbnet.org From pyyhkala at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 19:42:36 2009 From: pyyhkala at gmail.com (Mika Pyyhkala) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:42:36 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Association of Blind Citizens To Webcast Authors Guild Protest From NYC Tue Apr 7 12:00 P.M. EDT Message-ID: New York City (Monday April 6, 2009) The Association of Blind Citizens, ABC, will produce a live webcast of the Reading Rights Coalition, RRC, protest being held at The Authors Guild in New York City. The webcast will begin on Tuesday April 7th between 11:45 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. EDT Listeners around the world can access the web page: http://blindcitizens.org/live which has information and links for listening to the live event. It is recommended that you access this web page prior to the event so that you can install the Talking Communities conference web browser component in advance. A flash based and mp3 stream may also be available at the above web address. The Reading Rights Coalition is a joint effort made up of 27 organizations representing upwards of 15 million Americans who are blind or otherwise unable to readily use traditional print. RRC organizations and members will collectively protest the discriminatory separate but not equal stance of the Authors Guild as it relates to Ebooks and the Amazon Kindle 2 text to speech audio feature. "The water company does not charge separate rates for the use of water depending on whether the consumer is drinking it or using it to wash dishes; it simply charges for the amount of water used. By the same token, an e-book is not inherently visual or aural, and to claim that reading it either visually or aurally should cost a different price is discriminatory." http://readingrights.org The RRC web site, above, has in depth information regarding the protest, an electronic petition, and other background and resource material. . The board of directors of NFB of Massachusetts, ABC, as well as all RRC organizations collectively, encourage you to sign the online petition, attend the protest in person or virtually, and sign up on the RRC web page to receive action alerts and updates. We urge you to widely circulate this information to your email contacts, personal and professional networks, and on vehicles such as Facebook and Twitter. Contact: Mika Pyyhkala Vice President Association of Blind Citizens Google Voice/SMS: (617) 202-3497 pyyhkala at gmail.com Micro Blog: http://twitter.com/pyyhkala From stiehm.law at juno.com Mon Apr 6 22:35:52 2009 From: stiehm.law at juno.com (Patrick H. Stiehm) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:35:52 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws Message-ID: <20090406.183552.2612.1.stiehm.law@juno.com> Jack, If you couldn't us a computer for the multistate, what reasonable accommodation did the Bar Examiners make so could take that part of the test? On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 "Jack Chen" writes: > Hello Benjamin > > I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to > use > Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a > computer for > the multistate. > > jack ____________________________________________________________ Digital Photography - Click Now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmRiytkIGbTb4jBmlb9pJNbINSxOTvVhSXoVzJdPaPJrh4FmAAg/ From mikefry79 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 23:07:47 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:07:47 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... In-Reply-To: <7638A85981599142811F69FBB9508B6B26D74C@FPNTEXCBE01.services.local> References: <7638A85981599142811F69FBB9508B6B26D74C@FPNTEXCBE01.services.local> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904061607m67024db0h3e3e7291bd8625fc@mail.gmail.com> I'm compelled to say that I'm very impressed and even awed by everyone's ingenious analytic insight into this issue. The level of insight and analysis is, to me, truly excellent. Chris and Jim are like geniuses. They seem to really understand the issues well. Good luck at the LA book fair. Mike On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:18 AM, McCarthy, Jim wrote: > Though I don't question Mr. Martinengo's expertise, I would clarify a > couple of facts. He wrote one report for the state of Maryland that had > some impact on getting a college textbook law passed here. College > students in Maryland still do not have accessible textbooks. As for > Georgia, Mr. Martinengo was hired to create an accessible textbook > center to aid state wide access for Georgia's college students. I am > not sure how well that project is working but it seems that he has been > trying to leave Georgia almost sense he arrived. The center and its > procedures may be well in place though. > > I would also point out that most of the framework in which the access to > books issue has played out requires the benevolence of the publishing > community. In the k-12 context, publishers must provide electronic > files for conversion into formats such as Braille, but there are no > penalties if they don't do so. In other contexts, those wanting to > provide accessible books request electronic copies from publishers that > publishers may or may not provide. There is no way to make them provide > these files at all. This means that individuals like Robert Martinengo > worry about offending publishers on any level. If publishers are > angered, forget about getting files for conversion. I understand that > caution but think this is quite a different issue. > > The Kindle 2 allows users to choose between two methods of content > delivery, print to a screen or text to speech. The latter opens huge > doors for us because if we can actually get at this content through text > to speech, whatever Amazon makes available to the nondisabled public is > also made available to us so long as we can pay the book purchase price. > I don't ever see the sort of models that Robert Martinengo is working > with offering that potential for access. In my view, it would be best > for the community if Mr. Martinengo kept his opinions to himself and > continued his work. Our success on this issue will result in access to > the printed word that would have been hard to imagine 20 or 30 years > ago. We might be setting a new access paradigm and Mr. Martinengo's > caution will only get in the way. > Jim McCarthy > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 AM > To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people > shouldthanktheAuthorsGuild... > > James,I think you are right that negotiation with copyright holders is > important. However, one should always negotiate from a position of > strength. > What we are doing here is that instead of going to the authors and > publishers and saying "Please be kind enough to give us more books," we > are firmly telling them that people who buy books, in whatever format, > have the right to read those books, and that there's a difference > between making a derivative work and simply converting a book into a > format that is more convenient for the user. The argument the Authors > Guild is making is not only wrong but entirely inconsistent with the > positions that most authors and publishers have taken in the past. For > example, no one claims that a blind person who buys a book, scans it and > processes the scan with OCR software, then reads the result with TTS is > violating anyone's copyright. > But the Authors Guild's new argument opens the door to just that kind of > thinking, and believe it or not there are still publishers who are > enemies of access and would like to further restrict what the blind and > others with disabilities can do to make books accessible. There are even > people who like to bluster about seeking the repeal of Chafee. I think > we are going to have to play a little good cop, bad cop here in order to > make sure our rights are vindicated. On the one hand, we must be willing > to talk directly to authors and publishers, which is one of the reasons > we are going to the LA Times Festival of Books. On the other hand, we > must also put pressure on them by taking our case to the court of public > opinion and standing firm on our principles. > > I object to this blog post for a couple of reasons. For one, the case > that the Authors Guild is right is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. > Martinengo makes it out to be. I don't dispute that he has done great > work for access, but I think he should think twice about adopting so > unquestionably an argument that limits access. I realize of course that > he's in a difficult position, as are people like the good folks at > Benetech; they have to work with publishers in order for their > operations to be successful. But I think he should avoid subscribing to > dubious principles. Secondly, I absolutely think he should avoid saying > that the disabled should thank the Authors Guild for anything at this > point. Whatever his intent, it sounds patronizing and paternalistic. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of James Pepper > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:16 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Why print-disabled people should > thanktheAuthorsGuild... > > The author of that blog is an expert in making textbooks accessible to > the blind for the state of Georgia and Maryland. Robert Martinengo. He > actually is on the side of accessibility and he makes a point, you are > going to have to deal with the copyright holders. > > Right now publishers convert books to Daisy but they are the ones doing > it and Kindle did this work without their permission. They just did it > and created a new format for publication without asking anyone, without > receiving any permission from the publishers to take their content and > make it readable in this format. > > Kindle is not the only format out there and given the recent > developments in making Talking books we are going to see a lot more > content. > > I think that if everyone would calm down about this and just directly > poll the publishers you may find that as long as they are not pushed > into this, they will continue to create Daisy Books. They have enough > problems right now with sales. > > And what I do not understand is why anyone would be against Kindle > because the books are not free, you have to pay for them, so with Kindle > they would get a royalty on converting books to be accessible. > In Daisy format they have to do this at their own expense. > > Of course the flip side of all of this is that publishers have always > had the option to not publish their work. It is their work. So there > needs to be an attitude in all of this of negotiation because providing > books in Daisy format has been a voluntary effort and they could easily > go back to the days of straight text files, unformatted but compliant to > Section 508 regulations, instead of formatted Daisy, Talking books or > Kindle. > > James Pepper > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cdanielsen8%40 > aol. > com > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 3988 (20090404) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40nf > b.org > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From jackchenonline at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 12:04:36 2009 From: jackchenonline at hotmail.com (Jack Chen) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:04:36 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws References: <20090406.183552.2612.1.stiehm.law@juno.com> Message-ID: The accomodations were double time and a cassette tape of the exam. I had to provide my own tape recorder. It was tough to do the questions with long passages on tape, and I would not recommend do it that way if they didn't have to. I liken taking an exam like that on tape to a sighted person taking the bar exam using a one line teleprompter. jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick H. Stiehm" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > > Jack, > > If you couldn't us a computer for the multistate, what reasonable > accommodation did the Bar Examiners make so could take that part of the > test? > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 "Jack Chen" > writes: >> Hello Benjamin >> >> I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to >> use >> Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a >> computer for >> the multistate. >> >> jack > > ____________________________________________________________ > Digital Photography - Click Now. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmRiytkIGbTb4jBmlb9pJNbINSxOTvVhSXoVzJdPaPJrh4FmAAg/ > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jackchenonline%40hotmail.com > From lmilholland at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 13:39:51 2009 From: lmilholland at hotmail.com (Locke Milholland) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:39:51 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws In-Reply-To: References: <20090406.183552.2612.1.stiehm.law@juno.com> Message-ID: For the multi state, I used a reader of my choice, wetted by the State bar. They allowed my sister, a professional editor/writer with no legal background, with whom I have obviously had a long term relationship with. She was better than a tape recording, at reading, and at filling out the bubble sheet. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jack Chen" Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:04 AM To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Cc: Subject: Re: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > The accomodations were double time and a cassette tape of the exam. I had > to provide my own tape recorder. It was tough to do the questions with > long passages on tape, and I would not recommend do it that way if they > didn't have to. I liken taking an exam like that on tape to a sighted > person taking the bar exam using a one line teleprompter. > > jack > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick H. Stiehm" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] taking the bar exam with jaws > > >> >> Jack, >> >> If you couldn't us a computer for the multistate, what reasonable >> accommodation did the Bar Examiners make so could take that part of the >> test? >> >> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:21 -0400 "Jack Chen" >> writes: >>> Hello Benjamin >>> >>> I took the New York and New Jersey bar exams in 2005 and was able to >>> use >>> Jaws for all portions of the state bar exams but was denied a >>> computer for >>> the multistate. >>> >>> jack >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Digital Photography - Click Now. >> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmRiytkIGbTb4jBmlb9pJNbINSxOTvVhSXoVzJdPaPJrh4FmAAg/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jackchenonline%40hotmail.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotmail.com > From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Apr 7 15:25:29 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules Message-ID: Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules By Steve Vogel Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html From timandvickie at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 20:51:19 2009 From: timandvickie at hotmail.com (Tim Shaw) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:51:19 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hmmmm the government agency i just started working for does the compensatory time off rather than overtime thing to, they weretrying to explain it to me today. > From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 -0500 > Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > By Steve Vogel > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." > > View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 From khagen12 at q.com Wed Apr 8 00:27:39 2009 From: khagen12 at q.com (Kathleen Hagen) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:27:39 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules References: Message-ID: Thanks Noel. I think a lot of the federal agencies do not pay overtime or even compensatory time. Kathy Hagen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nightingale, Noel" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:25 AM Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of > interest. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > By Steve Vogel > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that > the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the > Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an > arbitrator has ruled. > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees > rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a > knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere > negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last > week. > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to > its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is > overworked. > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model > employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking > employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC > Locals, said in a statement. > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it > handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime > practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We > want to do overtime right." > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine > Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the > ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to > appeal" the decision. > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves > overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of > paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not > satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' > compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to > work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law. > "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime > violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the > union. > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an > "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more > than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up > 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its > staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of > its employees," Martin said. > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare > better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years > of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a > standstill. > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer > until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing > shortfalls." > > View Comments: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/khagen12%40q.com > From rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com Wed Apr 8 01:51:13 2009 From: rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com (ray wayne) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:51:13 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090408015113.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> Personally, I do not advise filing a grievance at a job you just started. While it may be your legal right, to paraphrase the first President Bush, it "wouldn't be prudent." Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Shaw To: Date: Tuesday, Apr 7, 2009 17:06:37 Subject: Re: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > hmmmm the government agency i just started working for does the compensatory time off rather than overtime thing to, they weretrying to explain it to me today. > > > From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov > > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 com0500 > > Subject: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > By Steve Vogel > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. > > > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. > > > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. > > > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. > > > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." > > > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. > > > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law.. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. > > > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. > > > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. > > > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." > > > > View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live��: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 > _______________________________________________ > bllaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com From timandvickie at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 03:01:36 2009 From: timandvickie at hotmail.com (Tim Shaw) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 03:01:36 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules In-Reply-To: <20090408015113.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> References: <20090408015113.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: oh i know im not gonna file a greivance about it anytime soon jsut interesing to see that anotehr agency is being called out on it. > From: rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:51:13 -0400 > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > Personally, I do not advise filing a grievance at a job you just started. While it may be your legal right, to paraphrase the first President Bush, it "wouldn't be prudent." > Ray > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Shaw > To: > Date: Tuesday, Apr 7, 2009 17:06:37 > Subject: Re: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > > > > > > hmmmm the government agency i just started working for does the compensatory time off rather than overtime thing to, they weretrying to explain it to me today. > > > > > From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov > > > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:25:29 com0500 > > > Subject: [bllaw] EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > > > Thought some on this list might find this article about the EEOC of interest. > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901.html?hpid=moreheadlines > > > > > > EEOC Willfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules > > > > > > By Steve Vogel > > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > > Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A15 > > > > > > The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation's workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled. > > > > > > The agency's practice of offering compensatory time off to its employees rather than overtime pay amounted to "forced volunteering" and was a knowing violation of the law, according to the ruling. > > > > > > "The case before me, in my view, demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence," arbitrator Steven M. Wolf wrote in a decision released last week. > > > > > > The union representing EEOC employees said the decision lends credence to its frequent complaint that the agency is undermanned and its staff is overworked. > > > > > > "This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the 'model employer' should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees," Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals, said in a statement. > > > > > > Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said the agency will review how it handles overtime. "Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes," he said in a statement. "We want to do overtime right." > > > > > > "I'm sure our HR people are looking at it very closely," said Justine Lisser, a spokeswoman for the agency. > > > > > > The agency may be subject to paying back wages to employees based on the ruling. Lisser added that there has been "no decision on whether to appeal" the decision. > > > > > > The ruling stems from a grievance filed by the union in 2006 and involves overtime disputes dating to 2003. Wolf found that the EEOC's practice of paying compensatory time to any employee who worked extra hours did not satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act. > > > > > > "With rare exception in this record, the concept of 'requesting' compensatory time was a fiction," Wolf wrote. Employees were pressured to work extra hours but not offered extra pay, according to the arbitrator. > > > > > > The union charges that the agency is in "continuing violation" of the law.. "The unfortunate reality is that EEOC continues its deplorable overtime violations to this day," said Barbara Hutchison, an attorney for the union. > > > > > > The dispute comes at a time when the agency is handling what it terms an "unprecedented" level of discrimination charges. The EEOC received more than 95,400 charges of job bias in the private sector in fiscal 2008, up 15.2 percent from 2007 and 26 percent from 2006. > > > > > > But over the past eight years the EEOC has lost about 25 percent of its staff, including investigators and lawyers who handle the cases. > > > > > > "The EEOC should stop balancing its resource constraints on the backs of its employees," Martin said. > > > > > > EEOC and union officials have expressed hope that the agency will fare better under the Obama administration than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush's tenure as president, when hiring was often at a standstill. > > > > > > Martin said that "it is the nation's workers who will continue to suffer until the agency sees increases to its budget and addresses staffing shortfalls." > > > > > > View Comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033002901_Comments.html > > > _______________________________________________ > > > bllaw mailing list > > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/timandvickie%40hotmail.com > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. > > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com > _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A From dandrews at visi.com Thu Apr 9 03:44:18 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:44:18 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Sign Reading Rights Coalition Petition! Message-ID: As you know, the National Federation of the Blind, NFB, is part of the Reading Rights Coalition, along with 29 (and growing) groups that support people with disabilities. The Reading Rights Coalition has been created to raise awareness about the Authors Guild and to support the 15 million print-disabled people in the US who are effected by their decision to turn off the text-to-speech function on the Kindle 2, stating that it violates copyright law. We are asking everyone to go to the petition Web site at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read , sign the petition, and forward to all of your contacts. We are trying to get 10,000 signatures and are one third of the way there. Please help! David Andrews From info at michaelhingson.com Fri Apr 10 01:55:14 2009 From: info at michaelhingson.com (Michael Hingson) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:55:14 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Message-ID: Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its related products. For more information about the reader or to place an order please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. Cordially, Mike Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com From habnkid at aol.com Fri Apr 10 02:20:47 2009 From: habnkid at aol.com (Haben Girma) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:20:47 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Deaf-Blind Lawyers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49DEACFF.800@aol.com> Greetings. My name is Haben and I am currently an undergraduate student at Lewis & Clark College. I am partially blind and partially deaf, so deaf-blind for simplicity. I am strongly considering attending law school and practicing law. What challenges should I expect as a deaf-blind law student that I wouldn't experience in college? Are there deaf-blind people practicing law in this country? Please let me know. thanks, Haben David Andrews wrote: > As you know, the National Federation of the Blind, NFB, is part of the > Reading Rights Coalition, along with 29 (and growing) groups that > support people with disabilities. The Reading Rights Coalition has > been created to raise awareness about the Authors Guild and to support > the 15 million print-disabled people in the US who are effected by > their decision to turn off the text-to-speech function on the Kindle > 2, stating that it violates copyright law. > > We are asking everyone to go to the petition Web site at > http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read > , sign the petition, and forward to all of your contacts. > > We are trying to get 10,000 signatures and are one third of the way > there. > > Please help! > > > David Andrews > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/habnkid%40aol.com > From roddj12 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 10:35:56 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:35:56 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its related products. For more information about the reader or to place an order please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. Cordially, Mike Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From AZNOR99 at aol.com Fri Apr 10 12:02:56 2009 From: AZNOR99 at aol.com (AZNOR99 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:02:56 EDT Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Message-ID: I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS software discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. Here's the page with basic information. _http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) Ronza In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its related products. For more information about the reader or to place an order please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. Cordially, Mike Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) From lmilholland at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 13:49:55 2009 From: lmilholland at hotmail.com (Locke Milholland) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:49:55 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, if so, how well does it work? Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the courtroom? So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney who is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > related products. For more information about the reader or to place > an order please visit > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > shipping. > > Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > Cordially, > > > Mike Hingson > > The Michael Hingson Group > "Speaking with Vision" > Michael Hingson, President > (415) 827-4084 > info at michaelhingson.com > www.michaelhingson.com > > > for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotmail.com > From roddj12 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 18:03:42 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:03:42 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, but the client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a mistake and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while in court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel very uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think one should always get an assistant to help out. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, if so, how well does it work? Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the courtroom? So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney who is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > related products. For more information about the reader or to place > an order please visit > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > shipping. > > Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > Cordially, > > > Mike Hingson > > The Michael Hingson Group > "Speaking with Vision" > Michael Hingson, President > (415) 827-4084 > info at michaelhingson.com > www.michaelhingson.com > > > for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm ail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Fri Apr 10 20:07:39 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:07:39 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Position Announcement: Lawyers Fostering Independence Program (fwd) Message-ID: From: Vaughan, Kate (Perkins Coie) [mailto:KVaughan at perkinscoie.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:49 AM To: Juvenile Law Section Subject: [juvenile-law-section] Position Announcement: Lawyers Fostering Independence Program Dear all, Please find attached the Position Announcement for the Lawyers Fostering Independence Program. Please feel free to forward this to anyone you think might be interested! I have copied the text into the email below also in case anyone has difficulties with the attachment. All the best, Kate Kate Vaughan | Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PHONE: 206.359.8102 FAX: 206.359.9102 E-MAIL: KVaughan at perkinscoie.com POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT Lawyers Fostering Independence Program -Managing Attorney The Center for Children & Youth Justice is seeking applicants for a six month contract position of Managing Attorney for the Lawyers Fostering Independence Program in Washington State. The mission of the LFI Program is to provide access to pro bono legal services for foster youth between 17 and 23 years old transitioning out of foster care. The Program recruits and trains pro bono attorneys to staff cases, provides a monthly free legal clinic for eligible youth, offers youth and caseworkers training on basic legal rights and empowers youth to advocate for themselves. The Managing Attorney is responsible for managing and developing the LFI program including: a. Managing the referral process and case intake b. Assigning cases to pro bono counsel and monitoring those cases. c. Providing case support to pro bono counsel. d. Engaging in outreach to youth and youth service providers to inform them of the program. e. Providing education to youth and youth service providers on legal issues to enable issue spotting for legally resolvable problems. f. Managing and staffing the once monthly legal clinic. g. Recruiting and training pro bono counsel in regular CLE sessions. h. Maintaining a team of expert attorneys to act as mentors to the pro bono counsel. i. Partnering with other organizations to provide further clinic and legal education opportunities for youth. j. Developing a plan for replicating the program statewide. k. Drafting grant applications for continued funding of the Program. The LFI Managing Attorney works under direction of the Center for Children & Youth Justice Managing Director. The position is a contract position at $35/hour, with an expected but flexible workload of 15-20 hours per week. A bus pass is provided. The term of the contract is 6 months. Minimum Qualifications * Juris Doctor; and * A minimum of 2 years of experience in juvenile justice, child welfare, education, public or court administration or other related fields; Candidates must also have: * Excellent organizational and administrative skills including the ability to lead a program independently; * A demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with a wide range of people in a professional manner; and * Working knowledge of Word for Windows, Excel, E-mail and the Internet. * Grant writing experience is a plus. Interested individuals should submit a letter of application, resume, and addresses of three professional references by April 22, 2009 via email to: Kate Vaughan Perkins Coie LLP 1201 3rd Ave Seattle, WA, 98101 kvaughan at perkinscoie.com --- You are currently subscribed to juvenile-law-section as: kambrose at u.washington.edu. If wish to unsubscribe, please contact the WSBA List Administrator NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LFI Position Announcement rev.DOC (3).pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 98724 bytes Desc: LFI Position Announcement rev.DOC (3).pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Cayac_alumni mailing list Cayac_alumni at u.washington.edu http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/cayac_alumni From dandrews at visi.com Fri Apr 10 20:10:27 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:10:27 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. Dave At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >software >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >Here's the page with basic information. >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > >Ronza > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > >Rod Alcidonis >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >related products. For more information about the reader or to place >an order please visit >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >shipping. > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > >Cordially, > > >Mike Hingson > >The Michael Hingson Group >"Speaking with Vision" >Michael Hingson, President >(415) 827-4084 >info at michaelhingson.com >www.michaelhingson.com > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com David Andrews and white cane Harry. From lmilholland at hotmail.com Fri Apr 10 20:17:53 2009 From: lmilholland at hotmail.com (Locke Milholland) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:17:53 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, but > the > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > mistake > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while > in > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel > very > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think > one > should always get an assistant to help out. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, > if > > so, how well does it work? > > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the > courtroom? > > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney > who > > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. > Locke > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> an order please visit >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >> shipping. >> >> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >> >> Cordially, >> >> >> Mike Hingson >> >> The Michael Hingson Group >> "Speaking with Vision" >> Michael Hingson, President >> (415) 827-4084 >> >> info at michaelhingson.com >> www.michaelhingson.com >> >> >> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotmail.com > From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Fri Apr 10 20:40:43 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:40:43 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Univ. of Alabama Accepts its Honors Undergrads Sans LSAT, ABA Journal, April 8, 2009 Message-ID: Blindlaw listers: This article describes an interesting development and a potential way for some to avoid the pain of the LSAT and obtaining accommodations for it. Link: http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/univ._of_alabama_admits_honors_undergrads_sans_lsat Text: Univ. of Alabama Accepts its Honors Undergrads Sans LSAT Posted Apr 8, 2009 By Sarah Randag As a part of a pilot program, the University of Alabama School of Law has admitted seniors from the University of Alabama's Honors College without LSAT scores, the Tuscaloosa News reported. "The decade-old Law-UA Honors partnership, which is a select but important part of our recruitment effort, is experimenting this year with ways to keep top local students on campus for their legal education," law school spokesman Aaron Latham said in a statement. Through a public information request, the Tuscaloosa News obtained a letter that Claude Reeves, associate dean for admissions at the law school, sent to Honors College students in the fall. The letter stated that for Honors College students with a minimum 3.75 GPA, applications would not require LSAT scores, essays or recommendation letters, and that their admission decisions would be made within 24 hours. The University of Michigan announced a similar program in September that goes so far as to not consider applicants who had taken the LSAT. The MoneyLaw blog, among others, suggested at the time that one aim of the program may be to improve the school's ranking in U.S. News & World Report. "After all, the law school can hardly report LSAT scores for its 1L Wolverine Scholars if no such scores exist. Yet those same students offer the school a chance to greatly improve the mean GPA of its 1L class," according to the blog. The Tuscaloosa News also noted that the University of Illinois College of Law announced a similar program in October, as the National Law Journal detailed at the time. This program allows University of Illinois undergrads to apply during their junior year, and the LSAT is optional. From joramsey at cox.net Fri Apr 10 22:00:16 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:00:16 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping federal law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation in a non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it was obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it back on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not want me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a company have the right to open a private communication that is not on letterhead, not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has it's own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? Thanks, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, > but > the > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > mistake > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while > in > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel > very > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think > one > should always get an assistant to help out. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? > And, > if > > so, how well does it work? > > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in > the courtroom? > > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another > attorney > who > > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> an order please visit >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >> shipping. >> >> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >> >> Cordially, >> >> >> Mike Hingson >> >> The Michael Hingson Group >> "Speaking with Vision" >> Michael Hingson, President >> (415) 827-4084 >> >> info at michaelhingson.com >> www.michaelhingson.com >> >> >> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm ail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From joramsey at cox.net Fri Apr 10 22:03:52 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Blind Lawyers Association In-Reply-To: <4313AD4429551F4595A8A414A660C75F1648F52A@wdcrobe2m05.ed.gov> Message-ID: <82626880746848BCAD8B4657781AE26E@noneeb869fea9a> Hello Noel, I am getting some crazy return email messages from the blind law list and had to look for this old email message so that I can talk to you. I would like to speak with you on a legal issue and would appreciate you emailing me off list at joramsey at cox.net Thanks, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces+joramsey=cox.net at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces+joramsey=cox.net at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nightingale, Noel Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:31 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Blind Lawyers Association I suggest that to join our National Association of Blind Lawyers, which by the way is not limited to lawyers, you call our president, Scott LaBarre, at (303) 504-5979. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces+noel.nightingale=ed.gov at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces+noel.nightingale=ed.gov at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of john Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 2:09 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Blind Lawyers Association Hello All, I will be sworn to the Florida Bar on October 15th and want to know how to go about joining the National Blind Lawyer's Association. Please provide information. Take care, John _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw/joramsey%40cox.net No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1717 - Release Date: 10/9/2008 4:56 PM From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Fri Apr 10 22:23:39 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:23:39 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> What does this device do? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national > dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, > or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell > stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and > a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. > > There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works > with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. > > Dave > > > At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >>wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >>software >>discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >>N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >>Here's the page with basic information. >>_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) >> >>Ronza >> >> >>In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: >> >>Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >> >>Rod Alcidonis >>Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>Roger Williams University School of Law >>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>Bristol, RI 02809 >>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>an order please visit >>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >>The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>shipping. >> >>Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >>Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >> >>Cordially, >> >> >>Mike Hingson >> >>The Michael Hingson Group >>"Speaking with Vision" >>Michael Hingson, President >>(415) 827-4084 >>info at michaelhingson.com >>www.michaelhingson.com >> >> >>for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com >> >>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 >>easy >>steps! >>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >>hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>for blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > David Andrews and white cane Harry. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.51/2052 - Release Date: 04/10/09 06:39:00 From b.schulz at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 10 23:45:00 2009 From: b.schulz at sbcglobal.net (Bryan Schulz) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:45:00 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: hi, i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the job. Bryan Schulz The BEST Solution www.best-acts.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> but >> the >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> mistake >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >> in >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> you >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> very >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> exhibits >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >> one >> should always get an assistant to help out. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> And, >> if >> >> so, how well does it work? >> >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> the courtroom? >> >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> attorney >> who >> >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> an order please visit >>> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>> shipping. >>> >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> >>> Mike Hingson >>> >>> The Michael Hingson Group >>> "Speaking with Vision" >>> Michael Hingson, President >>> (415) 827-4084 >>> >>> info at michaelhingson.com >>> www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.net From rjtlawfirm at yahoo.com Sat Apr 11 00:01:41 2009 From: rjtlawfirm at yahoo.com (Russell J. Thomas, Jr.) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:01:41 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C44CD191FFD4AB6873E65C6D0C68D79@RJT> If you are looking for a new cellphone, be prepared for a lot of confusion. If you want a knfb reader, that works with a nokia n82 and another nokia phone. If you use talks software, that software will not work on the nokia n82; at&t no longer supports Talks, and as far as I know, the only Major carrier that uses Talks for the nokia n82 is tmobile. You need to know what software your current carrier supports, and what software you will need for your new phone; unfortunately, the carriers may not be the same; you may need to change carriers, or change your selection of phones. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:10 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. Dave At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >software >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >Here's the page with basic information. >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > >Ronza > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > >Rod Alcidonis >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >related products. For more information about the reader or to place >an order please visit >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >shipping. > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > >Cordially, > > >Mike Hingson > >The Michael Hingson Group >"Speaking with Vision" >Michael Hingson, President >(415) 827-4084 >info at michaelhingson.com >www.michaelhingson.com > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail . >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=ht tp:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.c om David Andrews and white cane Harry. _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rjtlawfirm%40yahoo .com From roddj12 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 11 00:53:28 2009 From: roddj12 at hotmail.com (Rod Alcidonis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:53:28 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I invite folks to visit the Humanware website, and they do not need a contract to get the Mobile Speak for $195. The $295 is how much I paid when I purchased it years ago. Mobile Speak has multiple distributors, and it seems like they all set the price however they want to. I don't know much about the KNFBReader to comment. The humanware website is: www.humanware.com The info is right on the home page. This price saves a blind person $100. Rod Alcidonis  Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651  E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. Dave At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >software >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >Here's the page with basic information. >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > >Ronza > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > >Rod Alcidonis >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >Roger Williams University School of Law >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >Bristol, RI 02809 >Home: (401) 824-8685 >Cell: (718) 704-4651 >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >related products. For more information about the reader or to place >an order please visit >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >shipping. > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > >Cordially, > > >Mike Hingson > >The Michael Hingson Group >"Speaking with Vision" >Michael Hingson, President >(415) 827-4084 >info at michaelhingson.com >www.michaelhingson.com > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >com > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >steps! >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=ht tp:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.c om David Andrews and white cane Harry. _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com From mikefry79 at gmail.com Sat Apr 11 01:43:39 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:43:39 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904101843p5b05cafes7ec98f2beb24e365@mail.gmail.com> That's the first time I've seen the humanware site. It's kewl, I like the talking GPS and handheld electronic magnifiers. Mike On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Rod Alcidonis wrote: > Well, I invite folks to visit the Humanware website, and they do not need a > contract to get the Mobile Speak for $195. The $295 is how much I paid when > I purchased it years ago. Mobile Speak has multiple distributors, and it > seems like they all set the price however they want to. I don't know much > about the KNFBReader to comment. > > The humanware website is: > www.humanware.com > > The info is right on the home page. > This price saves a blind person $100. > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of David Andrews > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national > dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, > or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell > stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and > a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. > > There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works > with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. > > Dave > > > At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: > >I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I > >wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS > >software > >discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the > >N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. > >Here's the page with basic information. > >_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) > > > >Ronza > > > > > >In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > >roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: > > > >Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > >Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > > > >Rod Alcidonis > >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >Roger Williams University School of Law > >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >Bristol, RI 02809 > >Home: (401) 824-8685 > >Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > On > >Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > >To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > >Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > >Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > >know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > >like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > >of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > >related products. For more information about the reader or to place > >an order please visit > > > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > > >The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > >KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > >optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > >phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > >entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > >shipping. > > > >Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > >technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > >purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > >given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > > >Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > >mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > >questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > > > >Cordially, > > > > > >Mike Hingson > > > >The Michael Hingson Group > >"Speaking with Vision" > >Michael Hingson, President > >(415) 827-4084 > >info at michaelhingson.com > >www.michaelhingson.com > > > > > >for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > > > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >_______________________________________________ > >blindlaw mailing list > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >blindlaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail > > >com > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blindlaw mailing list > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >blindlaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com > > > >**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 > easy > >steps! > >( > http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=ht > tp:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com > %2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 > >hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) > >_______________________________________________ > >blindlaw mailing list > >blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info > >for blindlaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.c > om > > David Andrews and white cane Harry. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com Sat Apr 11 02:44:55 2009 From: rwayne1 at nyc.rr.com (ray wayne) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:44:55 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <20090411024455.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I suspect the same applies to private employers. So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful in the future. Ray Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "John was To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > > > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, > > but > > the > > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > > mistake > > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while > > in > > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the > > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you > > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel > > very > > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits > > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think > > one > > should always get an assistant to help out. > > > > Rod Alcidonis > > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > > Roger Williams University School of Law > > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > > Bristol, RI 02809 > > Home: (401) 824-8685 > > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? > > And, > > if > > > > so, how well does it work? > > > > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in > > the courtroom? > > > > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another > > attorney > > who > > > > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > >ar > >ar > >ar Rod Alcidonis > >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >ar Roger Williams University School of Law > >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >ar Bristol, RI 02809 > >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 > >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >ar > >ar -----Original Message----- > >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >ar > >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place > >ar an order please visit > >ar > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >ar > >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > >ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > >ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > >ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > >ar entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > >ar shipping. > >ar > >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >ar > >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > >ar > >ar > >ar Cordially, > >ar > >ar > >ar Mike Hingson > >ar > >ar The Michael Hingson Group > >ar "Speaking with Vision" > >ar Michael Hingson, President > >ar (415) 827-4084 > >ar > >ar info at michaelhingson.com > >ar www.michaelhingson.com > >ar > >ar > >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > >ar > > > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > >ar _______________________________________________ > >ar bllaw mailing list > >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >ar bllaw: > >ar > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > >ar com > >ar > >ar > >ar _______________________________________________ > >ar bllaw mailing list > >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >ar bllaw: > >ar > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > > ail.com > >ar > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > bllaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > > com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bllaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > bllaw: > > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > bllaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > bllaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > bllaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for bllaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 03:44:09 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:44:09 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Electronic Frontier Foundation features Kindle Protest in their newsletter Message-ID: <4AEF0B6B4487402D94C8CDC033C929D0@spike> The Electronic Frontier Foundation featured the Reading Rights Coalition protest against the Authors Guild in their newsletter. Summary and link to article below. Chuck EFF Updates * Disability Access Activists Gather to Protest Kindle DRM Hundreds of people gathered in front of the headquarters of The Authors Guild in New York City to protest the removal of text-to-speech capabilities in Amazon's new Kindle 2. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/protest-kindle-drm From dandrews at visi.com Sat Apr 11 03:54:34 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:54:34 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> References: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> Message-ID: It is a portable device for reading printed materials. Dave At 05:23 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >What does this device do? >----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > >>KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national >>dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, >>or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell >>stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and >>a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. >> >>There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works >>with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. >> >>Dave >> >> >>At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>>I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >>>wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >>>software >>>discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is the >>>N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >>>Here's the page with basic information. >>>_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) >>> >>>Ronza >>> >>> >>>In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>>roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: >>> >>>Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>>Rod Alcidonis >>>Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>Roger Williams University School of Law >>>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>Bristol, RI 02809 >>>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>an order please visit >>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>>The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>shipping. >>> >>>Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>>Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>>Cordially, >>> >>> >>>Mike Hingson >>> >>>The Michael Hingson Group >>>"Speaking with Vision" >>>Michael Hingson, President >>>(415) 827-4084 >>>info at michaelhingson.com >>>www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>>for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>com >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com >>> >>>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy >>>steps! >>>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >>> >>hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>for blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com >> >>David Andrews and white cane Harry. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>for blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.51/2052 - Release Date: >04/10/09 06:39:00 > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com > > From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 04:57:10 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:57:10 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Several attorneys that I know have a paralegal with them in court to assist with them with document control and whatever else is needed. These attorneys are sighted. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Alcidonis" To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, but the client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a mistake and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while in court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize you -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel very uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your exhibits in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think one should always get an assistant to help out. Rod Alcidonis Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. Roger Williams University School of Law 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 Bristol, RI 02809 Home: (401) 824-8685 Cell: (718) 704-4651 E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? And, if so, how well does it work? Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in the courtroom? So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another attorney who is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke -------------------------------------------------- From: "Rod Alcidonis" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > > > Rod Alcidonis > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > Roger Williams University School of Law > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > Bristol, RI 02809 > Home: (401) 824-8685 > Cell: (718) 704-4651 > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation > of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > related products. For more information about the reader or to place > an order please visit > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > > The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the > KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and > phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The > entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus > shipping. > > Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > > Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > > > Cordially, > > > Mike Hingson > > The Michael Hingson Group > "Speaking with Vision" > Michael Hingson, President > (415) 827-4084 > info at michaelhingson.com > www.michaelhingson.com > > > for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. > com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm ail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 06:09:13 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:09:13 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to an outgoing mailbox? Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> but >> the >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> mistake >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >> in >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> you >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> very >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> exhibits >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >> one >> should always get an assistant to help out. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> And, >> if >> >> so, how well does it work? >> >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> the courtroom? >> >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> attorney >> who >> >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> an order please visit >>> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>> shipping. >>> >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> >>> Mike Hingson >>> >>> The Michael Hingson Group >>> "Speaking with Vision" >>> Michael Hingson, President >>> (415) 827-4084 >>> >>> info at michaelhingson.com >>> www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sat Apr 11 13:08:03 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:08:03 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> Message-ID: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your company. Joseph On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: > I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for > a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their > employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to > an outgoing mailbox? > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >> federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> but >>> the >>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> mistake >>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>> in >>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >>> criticize you >>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> very >>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> exhibits >>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>> one >>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> And, >>> if >>> >>> so, how well does it work? >>> >>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>> the courtroom? >>> >>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> attorney >>> who >>> >>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>> an order please visit >>>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>> shipping. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hingson >>>> >>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>> >>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>> >>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com From joramsey at cox.net Sat Apr 11 14:13:15 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:15 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <0FEA88E79A38459B884B02ACD97FF7EF@noneeb869fea9a> Hello Joseph, It is actually nothing that glamorous (smile). John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:08 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your company. Joseph On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: > I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work > for > a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their > employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to > an outgoing mailbox? > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >> overlapping federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone >> and it was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just >> placing it back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she >> did not want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the >> mail has it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >> raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family >> law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> but the >>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> mistake >>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>> in >>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >>> criticize you >>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> very >>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> exhibits >>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>> one >>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> And, if >>> >>> so, how well does it work? >>> >>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >>> in the courtroom? >>> >>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> attorney who >>> >>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >>>> Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the >>>> Reader and its related products. For more information about the >>>> reader or to place an order please visit >>>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >> n.com >>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >>>> the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >>>> an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >>>> software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >>>> cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader >>>> option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. >>>> Information about the loan is available on the web site given >>>> above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hingson >>>> >>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>> >>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>> >>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >> on.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >> cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40 >> sbcglobal.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjose > ph%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 14:17:19 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:17:19 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <20090411024455.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <20090411024455.rwayne1@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, unless there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your manager? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray wayne" To: Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my > employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) > That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable > expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers > and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I > suspect the same applies to private employers. > So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful > in the future. > Ray Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John was > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 > Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > >> >> >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >> federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >> I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >> I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >> it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >> it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >> not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >> has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >> the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> > but >> > the >> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> > mistake >> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >> > while >> > in >> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >> > the >> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> > you >> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> > very >> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> > exhibits >> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >> > think >> > one >> > should always get an assistant to help out. >> > >> > Rod Alcidonis >> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> > Roger Williams University School of Law >> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> > Bristol, RI 02809 >> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> > And, >> > if >> > >> > so, how well does it work? >> > >> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> > the courtroom? >> > >> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> > attorney >> > who >> > >> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Rod Alcidonis >> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >ar >> >ar -----Original Message----- >> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >> >) >> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >ar >> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> >ar an order please visit >> >ar >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >ar >> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >> >ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >> >ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >> >ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >> >ar entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >> >ar shipping. >> >ar >> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >ar >> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Cordially, >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Mike Hingson >> >ar >> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >> >ar Michael Hingson, President >> >ar (415) 827-4084 >> >ar >> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> >ar >> > >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> >ar bllaw: >> >ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> >ar com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> >ar bllaw: >> >ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> > ail.com >> >ar >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >> > com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.com > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From joramsey at cox.net Sat Apr 11 14:49:37 2009 From: joramsey at cox.net (John ) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:49:37 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> Hi Steve, No prior issues and I thought that I got along with her. I have no idea what if anything will happen and don't want to seem litigious but appropriate boundaries have to be established in the workplace. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:17 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, unless there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your manager? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray wayne" To: Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my > employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) > That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable > expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers > and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I > suspect the same applies to private employers. > So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful > in the future. > Ray Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John was > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 > Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > >> >> >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >> overlapping federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >> I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >> I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >> it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >> it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >> not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >> has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >> raising >> the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> > but the >> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> > mistake >> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >> > while >> > in >> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >> > the >> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> > you >> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> > very >> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> > exhibits >> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >> > think >> > one >> > should always get an assistant to help out. >> > >> > Rod Alcidonis >> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> > Roger Williams University School of Law >> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> > Bristol, RI 02809 >> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> > [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> > And, if >> > >> > so, how well does it work? >> > >> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >> > in the courtroom? >> > >> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> > attorney who >> > >> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Rod Alcidonis >> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >ar >> >ar -----Original Message----- >> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >> >) >> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >ar >> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> >ar an order please visit >> >ar >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >> n.com >> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >ar >> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >> >the ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >> >an ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >> >software and ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >> >cost $295.00. The ar entire package including the screen reader >> >option cost $1,665.00 plus ar shipping. ar >> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >ar >> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Cordially, >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Mike Hingson >> >ar >> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >> >ar Michael Hingson, President >> >ar (415) 827-4084 >> >ar >> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> >ar >> > >> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >> on.com >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> >ar com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> > ail.com >> >ar >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> > com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> ail.com >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >> cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.c om > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40in sightbb.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 11 16:21:12 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:21:12 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a><1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Message-ID: <3EEA1241BE264B69961A3FD9B8127A47@spike> I guess my union background shows as I didn't think of it from that angle as it is a bit far-fetched. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion > dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. > It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's > serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your > company. > > Joseph > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for >> a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their >> employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to >> an outgoing mailbox? >> Chuck >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM >> Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question >> >> >>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >>> federal >>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>> corporation >>> in a >>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >>> I >>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >>> I >>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >>> it >>> was >>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >>> it >>> back >>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >>> not >>> want >>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>> company >>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>> letterhead, >>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >>> has >>> it's >>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>> Thanks, >>> John >>> >>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>> >>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>> >>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> >>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >>> the >>> question. I know what I go into court with. >>> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >>> anyone. >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>>> but >>>> the >>>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>>> mistake >>>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >>>> while >>>> in >>>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >>>> the >>>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>>> you >>>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>>> very >>>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>>> exhibits >>>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >>>> think >>>> one >>>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>>> And, >>>> if >>>> >>>> so, how well does it work? >>>> >>>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>>> the courtroom? >>>> >>>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>>> attorney >>>> who >>>> >>>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >>>>> ) >>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>>> an order please visit >>>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>>> >>>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>>> shipping. >>>>> >>>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>>> >>>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cordially, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hingson >>>>> >>>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>>> >>>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>>> ail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 18:01:21 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:01:21 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> References: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: It would seem to me she would have stopped by to see you and explained policies concerning using company mailboxes. I would think, as long as your relationship was satisfactory, she would have given you the opportunity to explain what actually occurred. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "John" To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > Hi Steve, > No prior issues and I thought that I got along with her. I have no idea > what > if anything will happen and don't want to seem litigious but appropriate > boundaries have to be established in the workplace. > Take care, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:17 AM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > > It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, > unless > there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had > other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your > manager? > Steve > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ray wayne" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my >> employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) >> That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable >> expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers >> and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I >> suspect the same applies to private employers. >> So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be >> careful > >> in the future. >> Ray Wayne >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John was >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 >> Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question >> >>> >>> >>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >>> overlapping federal >>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>> corporation >>> in a >>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and >>> today > >>> I >>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >>> I >>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >>> it >>> was >>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >>> it >>> back >>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >>> not >>> want >>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>> company >>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>> letterhead, >>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >>> has >>> it's >>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>> Thanks, >>> John >>> >>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>> >>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>> >>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> >>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >>> raising >>> the >>> question. I know what I go into court with. >>> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >>> anyone. >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> > but the >>> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> > mistake >>> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >>> > while >>> > in >>> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >>> > the >>> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>> > you >>> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> > very >>> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> > exhibits >>> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >>> > think >>> > one >>> > should always get an assistant to help out. >>> > >>> > Rod Alcidonis >>> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> > Roger Williams University School of Law >>> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> > Bristol, RI 02809 >>> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> > [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> > >>> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> > And, if >>> > >>> > so, how well does it work? >>> > >>> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >>> > in the courtroom? >>> > >>> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> > attorney who >>> > >>> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------- >>> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> > >>> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar Rod Alcidonis >>> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >>> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >>> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >ar >>> >ar -----Original Message----- >>> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >>> >) >>> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >ar >>> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >>> >Federation >>> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> >ar an order please visit >>> >ar >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >>> n.com >>> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >ar >>> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >>> >the ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >>> >an ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >>> >software and ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >>> >cost $295.00. The ar entire package including the screen reader >>> >option cost $1,665.00 plus ar shipping. ar >>> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >ar >>> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar Cordially, >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar Mike Hingson >>> >ar >>> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >>> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >>> >ar Michael Hingson, President >>> >ar (415) 827-4084 >>> >ar >>> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >>> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >ar >>> > >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >>> on.com >>> >ar _______________________________________________ >>> >ar bllaw mailing list >>> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> >for ar bllaw: ar >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>> >ar com >>> >ar >>> >ar >>> >ar _______________________________________________ >>> >ar bllaw mailing list >>> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> >for ar bllaw: ar >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>> > ail.com >>> >ar >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > bllaw mailing list >>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> > for >>> > bllaw: >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>> > com >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > bllaw mailing list >>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> > for >>> > bllaw: >>> > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>> ail.com >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bllaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> bllaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >>> cox.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bllaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> bllaw: >>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc.rr.c > om >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40in > sightbb.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 > 10:51:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 18:02:50 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:02:50 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? In-Reply-To: References: <71D29CFD55414E63829F6F61B7B13EF0@StevePC> Message-ID: <8790BB8C738A434C883E5595CB43EC5F@StevePC> How well does it work and what are its limitations? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > It is a portable device for reading printed materials. > > Dave > > At 05:23 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>What does this device do? >>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" >>To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" >>Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10 PM >>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >>>KNFB Reading is a separate company. The NFB itself is a "national >>>dealer" for the KNFB Reader Mobile. The normal list price for Talks, >>>or Mobile Speak is $295. There are some phone companies that sell >>>stripped down versions for less, but you have to get your phone, and >>>a multi-year contract from them at the same time to get the lesser price. >>> >>>There is a second phone that the KNFB Reader Mobile software works >>>with now -- it is the Nokia 6220 Classic. >>> >>>Dave >>> >>> >>>At 07:02 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote: >>>>I'm totally confused. I just had to research this product because I >>>>wanted my employer to purchase it for me, and in addition to the TTS >>>>software >>>>discrepancy Rod mentioned, I thought the only phone that is usable is >>>>the >>>>N82. And KNFB Reading Technologies is a separate company from the NFB. >>>>Here's the page with basic information. >>>>_http://www.knfbreading.com_ (http://www.knfbreading.com) >>>> >>>>Ronza >>>> >>>> >>>>In a message dated 4/10/2009 7:08:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>>>roddj12 at hotmail.com writes: >>>> >>>>Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>>Rod Alcidonis >>>>Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>On >>>>Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>>of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>>related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>>an order please visit >>>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>>The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>>KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>>optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>>phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>>entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>>shipping. >>>> >>>>Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>>purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>>given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>>Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>>Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>>Mike Hingson >>>> >>>>The Michael Hingson Group >>>>"Speaking with Vision" >>>>Michael Hingson, President >>>>(415) 827-4084 >>>>info at michaelhingson.com >>>>www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>>for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blindlaw mailing list >>>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>blindlaw: >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>com >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blindlaw mailing list >>>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>blindlaw: >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/aznor99%40aol.com >>>> >>>>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 >>>>easy >>>>steps! >>>>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814837x1201410725/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26 >>>> >>hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blindlaw mailing list >>>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>for blindlaw: >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com >>> >>>David Andrews and white cane Harry. >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blindlaw mailing list >>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>for blindlaw: >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.51/2052 - Release Date: >>04/10/09 06:39:00 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blindlaw mailing list >>blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>for blindlaw: >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com >> >> >>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >>signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ >> >>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >> >>http://www.eset.com >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From stevep.deeley at insightbb.com Sat Apr 11 19:15:57 2009 From: stevep.deeley at insightbb.com (Steve P. Deeley) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:15:57 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <3EEA1241BE264B69961A3FD9B8127A47@spike> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <1738D25E71704076904736CDCBFCFD9D@spike> <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> <3EEA1241BE264B69961A3FD9B8127A47@spike> Message-ID: Union people and collective bargaining agreements have absolutely no flexibility in them. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question >I guess my union background shows as I didn't think of it from that angle >as > it is a bit far-fetched. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T. Joseph Carter" > To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >> Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- billion >> dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they steal yours. >> It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out to be, but it's >> serious enough that a single employee can seriously harm or destroy your >> company. >> >> Joseph >> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work for >>> a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their >>> employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to >>> an outgoing mailbox? >>> Chuck >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question >>> >>> >>>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >>>> federal >>>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>>> corporation >>>> in a >>>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and >>>> today >>>> I >>>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >>>> I >>>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >>>> it >>>> was >>>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >>>> it >>>> back >>>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >>>> not >>>> want >>>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>>> company >>>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>>> letterhead, >>>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >>>> has >>>> it's >>>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>>> Thanks, >>>> John >>>> >>>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>>> >>>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>>> >>>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On >>>> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >>>> the >>>> question. I know what I go into court with. >>>> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >>>> anyone. >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>>>> but >>>>> the >>>>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>>>> mistake >>>>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >>>>> while >>>>> in >>>>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >>>>> the >>>>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>>>> you >>>>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>>>> very >>>>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>>>> exhibits >>>>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >>>>> think >>>>> one >>>>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>>>> >>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>>>> And, >>>>> if >>>>> >>>>> so, how well does it work? >>>>> >>>>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>>>> the courtroom? >>>>> >>>>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>>>> attorney >>>>> who >>>>> >>>>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>>> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >>>>>> ) >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>>>> an order please visit >>>>>> >>>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>>>> >>>>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>>>> shipping. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>>>> >>>>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cordially, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Hingson >>>>>> >>>>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>>>> >>>>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>>> blindlaw: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>>> com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>>> blindlaw: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>>>> ail.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail. >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >>>> ail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >> >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 08:03:08 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:03:08 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <0FEA88E79A38459B884B02ACD97FF7EF@noneeb869fea9a> References: <20090411130803.GD56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> <0FEA88E79A38459B884B02ACD97FF7EF@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <20090412080308.GE56876@yumi.bluecherry.net> Nope, but it is lucrative. Not to the "spy", but to the employer of said person. But the job has other perks! If you're lucky, you'll be given state of the art gadgets--for example, a pen that secretly has the ability to write in ink on a piece of paper. My point was that a little healthy paranoia is a good idea in some industries. The point is to maintain security without making your employees feel like Big Brother is watching. As to your boss reading personal mail, I am fairly sure that it is quite illegal to tamper with US mail once it ends up in a mailbox. What I don't know is whether or not it ever got there, as far as the law is concerned. Joseph On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:13:15AM -0400, John wrote: >Hello Joseph, >It is actually nothing that glamorous (smile). >John > >John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > >Gainesville, FL 32609 > >Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter >Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:08 AM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > >Depending on the industry, yes. Industrial espionage is a multi- >billion dollar business. You steal their trade secrets before they >steal yours. It's nothing near as exciting as the movies make it out >to be, but it's serious enough that a single employee can seriously >harm or destroy your company. > >Joseph > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:13PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> I would have to seriously question whether it was beneficial to work >> for >> a company that was so petty and showed such a disregard for their >> employees. Does it really affect the company what mail is dropped in to >> an outgoing mailbox? >> Chuck >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:00 PM >> Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question >> >> >>> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >>> overlapping federal >>> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >>> corporation in a >>> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >I >>> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >>> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone >>> and it was >>> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just >>> placing it back >>> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >>> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she >>> did not want >>> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >>> company >>> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >>> letterhead, >>> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >>> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the >>> mail has it's >>> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >>> Thanks, >>> John >>> >>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >>> >>> Gainesville, FL 32609 >>> >>> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> >>> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >>> raising the question. I know what I go into court with. In family >>> law, the clients usually know more about the other party than anyone. >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>>> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>>> but the >>>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>>> mistake >>>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>>> in >>>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >>>> criticize you >>>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>>> very >>>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>>> exhibits >>>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>>> one >>>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>>> And, if >>>> >>>> so, how well does it work? >>>> >>>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >>>> in the courtroom? >>>> >>>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>>> attorney who >>>> >>>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>>> >>>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >>>>> Federation of the Blind is the only National distributor of the >>>>> Reader and its related products. For more information about the >>>>> reader or to place an order please visit >>>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >>> n.com >>>>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>>> >>>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >>>>> the KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >>>>> an optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >>>>> software and phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >>>>> cost $295.00. The entire package including the screen reader >>>>> option cost $1,665.00 plus shipping. >>>>> >>>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader purchase. >>>>> Information about the loan is available on the web site given >>>>> above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>>> >>>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cordially, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hingson >>>>> >>>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>>> >>>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >>> on.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>>> for >>>>> blindlaw: >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>>> ail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >>> otmail. >>>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>>> for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >>> %40hotm >>> ail.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >>> cox.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40 >>> sbcglobal.net >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjose >> ph%40gmail.com > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com From mikefry79 at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 16:57:31 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904120957q9dc9fsadf2ba859326f45e@mail.gmail.com> It sucks that your boss is a jerk. On another note, happy Easter everyone. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bryan Schulz wrote: > hi, > > i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the > job. > > Bryan Schulz > The BEST Solution > www.best-acts.com > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM > Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping >> federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >>> but >>> the >>> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >>> mistake >>> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >>> in >>> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >>> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >>> you >>> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >>> very >>> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >>> exhibits >>> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >>> one >>> should always get an assistant to help out. >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >>> And, >>> if >>> >>> so, how well does it work? >>> >>> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >>> the courtroom? >>> >>> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >>> attorney >>> who >>> >>> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rod Alcidonis >>>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>> On >>>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>>> >>>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>>> an order please visit >>>> >>>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>>> >>>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>>> shipping. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>>> >>>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hingson >>>> >>>> The Michael Hingson Group >>>> "Speaking with Vision" >>>> Michael Hingson, President >>>> (415) 827-4084 >>>> >>>> info at michaelhingson.com >>>> www.michaelhingson.com >>>> >>>> >>>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> . >> >>> com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> blindlaw: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> >>> ail.com >>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotmail >> . >> >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40hotm >> ail.com >> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From info at michaelhingson.com Tue Apr 14 01:05:54 2009 From: info at michaelhingson.com (Michael Hingson) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:05:54 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] blindlaw questions Message-ID: From Michael Hingson: Dave, Would you please post the following? I wish to provide some clarification to my post of last week as well as some answers to questions about costs and function. First, There has been some question about the cost of MobileSpeak. The best answer I can give is that HumanWare, I am sure, has negotiated a price for MobileSpeak. It may well be that they are able to sell the product for $195 while other organizations which do not sell as much of the product must sell it for a higher cost. On the other hand when you purchase the product from HumanWare you must install, activate, and configure it. When we configure KnfbReader Mobile products with a screen reader all parts of the product, including the screen reader, are installed, activated, and configured. It is up to each of you whether or not you wish to buy all the pieces of the Reader and put them together or pay someone to do so. This technology, especially aspects of the cell phones, are obscure and confusing. You also must take into account support for the product. Most dealers will only support what they sell. Purchasing MobileSpeak from HumanWare may be fine so long as they give you support should you not know anything about installing and activating it. I only wish to point out that many issues must be considered when buying each part of the Reader package separately and then merging them altogether. Someone asked what the Reader is. The KnfbReader Mobile is a package consisting of software, and a cell phone which together make up a system which will read most print aloud. Many of us use the Reader daily to read anything from mail to books and magazines to printed information on items around the house. If anyone wishes more information about the KnfbReader Mobile please feel free to call me at (415) 827-4084 or please visit http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com . Thanks for reading. I hope to be of service to you. Best, Michael Hingson The Michael Hingson Group "Speaking with Vision" Michael Hingson, President (415) 827-4084 info at michaelhingson.com www.michaelhingson.com for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com http://michaelhingson.com/images/knfbReader-michael_hingson.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7293d9.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3059 bytes Desc: not available URL: From craig.borne at dot.gov Mon Apr 13 13:10:20 2009 From: craig.borne at dot.gov (craig.borne at dot.gov) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:10:20 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Hello all, Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free legal advice? I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which comments are given. Thank you, Craig Craig Borne, Esq. NHTSA/DOT (202) 493-0627 craig.borne at dot.gov -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Schulz Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:45 PM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question hi, i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the job. Bryan Schulz The BEST Solution www.best-acts.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > federal > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a corporation > in a > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today I > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before I > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and it > was > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing it > back > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did not > want > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > company > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > letterhead, > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail has > it's > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > Thanks, > John > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising the > question. I know what I go into court with. > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than > anyone. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> but >> the >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> mistake >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me while >> in >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in the >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> you >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> very >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> exhibits >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I think >> one >> should always get an assistant to help out. >> >> Rod Alcidonis >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> Roger Williams University School of Law >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> Bristol, RI 02809 >> Home: (401) 824-8685 >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> And, >> if >> >> so, how well does it work? >> >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits in >> the courtroom? >> >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> attorney >> who >> >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >>> >>> >>> Rod Alcidonis >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >>> Roger Williams University School of Law >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >>> Bristol, RI 02809 >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews ) >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >>> >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place >>> an order please visit >>> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.c om >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >>> >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes the >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software and >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. The >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 plus >>> shipping. >>> >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >>> >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >>> >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> >>> Mike Hingson >>> >>> The Michael Hingson Group >>> "Speaking with Vision" >>> Michael Hingson, President >>> (415) 827-4084 >>> >>> info at michaelhingson.com >>> www.michaelhingson.com >>> >>> >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >>> >> > http://knfbreader.michaelhingson. com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm ail. >>> com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 hotm >> ail.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm ail. >> com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 hotm > ail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox .net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbc global.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 dot.gov From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Mon Apr 13 22:42:19 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:42:19 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Copyright in the Age of YouTube, ABA Journal, February 2009 Message-ID: This article from the ABA reminds me of our recent discussion on this list about the rights to obtain material in text-to-speech format. Link: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/copyright_in_the_age_of_youtube/ Text: Copyright in the Age of YouTube As user-generated sites flourish, copyright law struggles to keep up February 2009 Issue By Steven Seidenberg Holden Lenz had just learned to walk when—on Feb. 7, 2007—he stepped into the front lines of the copyright wars. Thirteen-month-old Holden was tottering around his family’s home in rural Penn­sylvania, clutching his walker and looking cute. The toddler heard the Prince song Let’s Go Crazy coming from a CD player in the kit­chen, so he stopped walking and began bouncing up and down to the music. Then he made a face and resumed pushing his walker across the kitchen floor. His mother, Stephanie Lenz, recorded these events in a 30-second home movie, which she posted on You­Tube the following day under the title Let’s Go Crazy #1. She had put similar clips online before so faraway family and friends could see her kids. This clip, however, drew the ire of the world’s largest music company—Universal Music Group—whose international operations garnered more than $6.9 billion in 2007. On June 4, 2007, Universal sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copy­right Act, asserting that the home movie of Holden infringed the multinational’s copyrights in Prince’s song. YouTube removed the video from its website. When Lenz learned what had happened, she did something unusual. Unlike the vast majority of people whose postings are the subject of DMCA takedown notices, Lenz consulted an attorney. She then sent a counternotice, asserting that her video, which contained only 20 seconds of a dimly audible song, was a protected fair use of Let’s Go Crazy and did not infringe Universal’s copyrights. YouTube ordinarily responds to counternotifications fairly quickly, reposting the videos in a day or two. Not this time. Weeks went by and nothing happened. On July 24, a month after she had filed the counternotification, Lenz upped the ante. She sued Universal for misrepresentation in its takedown notice. “I decided my First Amendment rights were being violated, and I decided to hit them where it hurt—let them know they couldn’t do this to people anymore.” Two weeks after the suit was filed, YouTube put the video back online. And one year later, on Aug. 20, 2008, Lenz won a precedent-setting battle against Universal. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern Dis­trict of California held that the DMCA requires copyright owners to consider fair use before sending a take­down notice. If a copyright owner sends a takedown notice without first making a good-faith evaluation of whether the allegedly infringing work is covered by fair use, the owner could be liable for damages, according to Fogel. The judge denied UMG’s motion to dismiss the suit, enabling Lenz to attempt to prove in an upcoming trial that UMG filed the takedown notice in bad faith. The ruling is part of a lar­g­er legal struggle over who should bear the burdens of stopping online copyright infringement. Movie companies, record companies and many other copyright owners fear that—because committing copyright infringement online is so fast and easy, and because the huge number of online infringements is skyrocketing—it is impracticable for copyright owners to stop online infringements by suing all the individual wrongdoers. So content owners are seeking alternatives. They are trying to automate the process of removing allegedly infringing material. They are asking the courts to impose liability on YouTube and other online companies if these companies fail to vigorously police the material posted by their users. And the content owners are lobbying Congress for tougher laws against infringement. Internet and technology companies fiercely oppose these changes, fearing they would impair innovation and drive many of them out of business. Civil rights organizations also oppose these changes, arguing they would damage an important new avenue of public communication. “Companies that depend on user-generated content —and MySpace, Facebook, AOL, virtually every major Internet company incorporates user-generated content —they create a new and more vibrant public sphere,” says Corynne McSherry, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, who is representing Lenz in her lawsuit against UMG. “We have a whole new set of channels of communication. It’s good for con­sumers and good for citizens.” SAFE-HARBOR BATTLE The battle over online copyright infringement was supposed to be resolved a decade ago. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act established a carefully calibrated compromise between the rights of copyright own­ers and those of online companies. Among other things, section 512 of the DMCA es­tablished a safe harbor for online service providers, man­dating they would not be liable for storing or trans­mit­­ting infringing material at their users’ direction, provided certain conditions were met. This safe harbor applies only if the online company does not know or should not reasonably have known about the infringement; and once the online company learns about the infringement, it must act “expeditiously” to remove the infringing material. Section 512 also created a notice-and-takedown regime. Copyright owners have a quick and easy way to notify online companies about infringing works. Online companies must respond to such takedown notices by expeditiously removing the allegedly infringing items from their Internet site or service. If an online company fails to do this, it loses its safe-harbor protection. Users of online ser­vices receive some protection, too. When an online company removes allegedly infringing material that was posted by a user, that company is statutorily required to notify the user of what happened and why. The individual has a right to send a counternotification stating he or she has a “good-faith belief” the material is not infringing. Once this counternotification is received, the online company must put the disputed material back online within 14 business days, unless the company receives notice from the copyright owner that it has filed an infringement suit against the person who posted the material. SITES FLOURISHING Section 512 has been, in some ways, an astounding success. Its statutory safe harbor has enabled many new online businesses to flower. YouTube, MySpace, Flickr and many other user-generated content sites have become household names with millions of users communicating and sharing information and other types of content. Such online communication would be impossible without sec­tion 512’s safe harbor, many experts assert. The UGC sites depend on this to protect them from copyright liability. “Without this safe harbor, no one could provide the services that You­Tube and Flickr provide,” says Joseph Gratz, a San Francisco-based attorney and past chair of the ABA’s Section of Intellectual Property Law’s Special Committee on the Digital Millennium Copy­right Act. “There would simply be too much risk.” Congress, however, enacted section 512 at a time when technology was simpler. “The DMCA ... was written when people were worried about bulletin board and Usenet operators who ran services for the uploading and downloading of content,” says New York City attorney Jeffrey Neuburger. The law’s drafters had no inkling that UGC sites would develop, much less that these sites would become wildly popular. Section 512’s system doesn’t fit these new sites well, according to some experts. “The system is working on a scale that Congress never intended, with millions of postings every day,” says Paul Goldstein, who teaches copyright law at Stanford Law School. Policing these postings and sending out takedown notices has become a time-consuming and costly process for copyright owners. “It puts a burden on small companies and individual authors that I don’t think Congress considered when it enacted these provisions,” Goldstein says. FLURRY OF TAKEDOWN NOTICES Copyright owners have tried mightily to work with­in the existing law. They have sent out hundreds of thousands of section 512 takedown notices. That’s far too many notices, according to some attorneys, who assert that copyright owners often do not bother to check whether an online item is truly infringing. Automated programs search for titles of copyrighted works and fragments of copyrighted songs or videos. If anything is found, the work is hit with a takedown notice—frequently without any real examination of the allegedly infringing item. This might be why Universal ordered YouTube to remove the homemade video of little Holden dancing in his family’s kitchen. If an attorney for Uni­versal had examined the video, says Gratz, counsel would have recognized that the snippet of a Prince song in the video was almost certainly not infringement, but fair use. The automated nature of many takedown notices also may explain why the International Olympic Committee ordered YouTube last August to take down a video titled Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony. The title certainly suggested the video contained material copyrighted by the IOC, but a cursory look at the video would have demonstrated otherwise. The video, made by Students for a Free Tibet, showed a protest outside the Chinese Consul­ate in New York City. (After the takedown notice was made public, the IOC was hit with a firestorm of bad publicity and withdrew its request.) These are not isolated examples of copyright owners being overly vigilant. “There’s no question that takedown notices get overused,” says Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at the University of Mich­igan Law School. “We’ve seen instance after instance where videos on YouTube, perfectly legal and perfectly fine ... get taken down,” McSherry says. “Copyright owners are not doing due diligence on these takedown requests.” Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. could change that. The court held, in a ruling of first impression, that because the copyright act protects the fair use of copyrighted works, section 512(c) “requires a copyright owner to consider the fair-use doctrine in formulating a good-faith belief that ‘use of the material ... is not authorized by ... the law.’ ” Issuing a takedown notice “without proper consideration of the fair-use doctrine” exposes the copyright owner to liability for misrepresentation under section 512(f) of the DMCA, the court concluded. “Lenz is saying something modest, but important,” Gratz says. “Copyright owners must think about fair use and make up their minds about whether it protects an online clip. They can’t just assume any video with the name of their song in the title is infringing.” The court stated its decision was needed “to prevent the abuse of takedown notices,” and the resulting burden on copyright owners was relatively light. A copyright owner does not need to correctly decide whether a video is protected by fair use. Section 512 merely requires the owner to subjectively believe, in good faith, that the item in question is not so protected, Judge Fogel held. Nevertheless, the ruling may pose serious problems for copyright owners, forcing many to spend significant time and money on legal analyses of large numbers of potentially infringing online items. “What the court is asking doesn’t sound like much, but ... determining whether something is a fair use can take a goodly amount of time,” Goldstein says. “When you pick a doctrine as protean and indeterminate as fair use, asking people to make snap judgments often isn’t feasible.” A GAME OF WHAC-A-MOLE Even without the burden of doing fair-use analyses, copyright owners are having a tough time policing UGC sites; the volume of posts is overwhelming. Ten hours of video content are put online every minute of every day—more than 250,000 clips per day—and that is just on YouTube. Given the huge amount of content posted to UGC sites, it is not surprising that copyright owners are trying to automate the process of identifying infringing content and sending out takedown notices. However, sending takedown notices to some UGC sites is often akin to playing a frustrating game of Whac-­a-Mole. “Once these things are legitimately taken down, often other users will put the same or very similar material up on the same website within minutes,” says Kim Jessum, an attorney in Philadelphia and chair of the ABA’s Special Committee on Online Copyright Issues. Some copyright owners have tried to sidestep these difficulties by attacking the UGC sites themselves—not the vast number of infringing clips nor the throngs of people who post this infringing content. In 2007 Viacom sued YouTube under this theory, claiming that some 150,000 unauthorized clips of Via­com programs were posted to the video website, and that YouTube didn’t do enough to stop this massive infringement. Claiming YouTube is liable for direct and sec­ondary copyright infringement, Viacom is seeking a minimum of $1 billion in damages plus an injunction requiring YouTube to employ technological measures to stop or limit future infringements. YouTube (and its corporate parent, Google) counters that the UGC site is protected from liability by the DMCA’s safe harbor. Some experts see the ongoing legal battle as a clear attempt by Viacom to undermine section 512. “It is a direct attack on the viability of the safe-harbor rule of the DMCA,” says Lawrence Iser, an IP attorney in Santa Monica, Calif. If Viacom succeeds, lots of UGC sites and other online service providers will be driven out of business, according to many experts. And the users of these sites will suffer, too, losing an important new way of communicating with one another. “There’s been a great flowering of user-generated content,” Gratz says. “It is enabling people to use the Internet, indeed the media, in ways they have never been able to do before. ... And their ability to do that depends on section 512 meaning what it says.” INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY Although Viacom international Inc. v. YouTube inc. has garnered massive media attention, the lesser-known Io Group Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc. raised the same issues of intermediary liability for copyright infringement and, ultimately, reaffirms the DMCA’s safe-harbor protection for online companies. Io Group makes and sells adult entertainment products, including movies. Veoh Networks, like YouTube, allows users to upload and view videos online. Io alleged that clips from some of its movies were uploaded and viewed on Veoh, and that Veoh should be held liable for direct and secondary copyright infringement. Veoh argued that it was protected from liability by section 512(c). Io noted that section 512(c)’s safe harbor applies only to infringing material that third parties have put onto a defendant’s system. In this case, Veoh took the clips uploaded by users, automatically copied them into a different format (suitable for online viewing), and put these infringing copies onto its website. Thus, Io argued, section 512(c) did not immunize Veoh against liability for the copies that the company had itself made and posted on its site. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California disagreed. Because Veoh had no volitional control over its automatic copying and posting of uploaded material, the court said, the company could not be held responsible for these actions. Veoh’s users, not Veoh, were the ones responsible for copying the clips and putting them onto Veoh’s website. Thus, section 512(c) protected Veoh against copyright liability for those clips. Io offered another argument: A service provider loses the protection of the section 512(c) safe harbor if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, and receives a financial benefit directly attributable to such activity. Io claimed that Veoh had the right and the ability to control the infringing activity on its website, and that Veoh profited from its users posting and viewing the infringing clips. The court rejected this argument, too. Judge Howard R. Lloyd held that although Veoh had the ability to control its own system, it did not have the ability to control the infringing activity. He concluded that the DMCA protects online companies like Veoh that work in good faith to limit copyright infringements committed by their users. Many online companies have cheered Io. But it is unclear how much this will help YouTube and other service providers because Io provides no clear guidelines for determining when copyright infringements are beyond a service provider’s control. How hard must a service provider work to stop infringements, in order to prove the provider is unable to control any infringing material that is put on its service by users? On one hand, Io appears to indicate that a good-faith effort to stop infringement may be enough: “The court does not find that the DMCA was intended to have Veoh shoulder the entire burden of policing third-party copyrights on its web­site (at the cost of losing its business if it cannot). Rather, the issue is wheth­er Veoh takes appropriate steps to deal with copyright infringement that takes place. The record presented demonstrates that, far from encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its website, and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its website. In sum, Veoh has met its burden in establishing its entitlement to safe harbor for the alleged infringements here.” [Emphasis added.] On the other hand, Io contains language suggesting that a service provider must do everything it reasonably can to stop infringements: “Perhaps most importantly, there is no indication that Veoh has failed to police its system to the fullest extent permitted by its architecture.” One of Viacom’s allegations is that YouTube is not policing its system as thoroughly as it can. According to Viacom’s complaint, YouTube has filtering technology that can identify and possibly remove copyrighted material, but this technology is used to protect only works that are licensed to appear on YouTube—such as music videos of Sony BMG artists, clips from HBO shows and segments from MGM movies. Unlicensed works don’t benefit from this technology, and their copyright owners thus face a flood of infringing posts. “Viacom’s claim is that YouTube is not policing its system to the fullest extent permitted by its architecture, and in fact is holding some tools back as a bargaining chip [to force copyright owners to license their works to YouTube],” Bruce Boyden, a professor of IP law at Marquette University, has written in his blog. “To the extent Io and other decisions are holding that, to preserve its DMCA immunity, an ISP has to police its system to the best of its abilities, YouTube may be in trouble.” If the courts eventually determine that the DMCA’s safe harbor protects most service pro­viders against liability for their users’ posts of infringing works, online companies and their users would benefit. Copyright owners, however, would find themselves in a difficult position. They would be forced to continue their Whac-a-Mole efforts to curb online infringements, and could bring infringement suits only against those people who upload or download the infringing works. “That would be terrible ... because the damages you can get from individuals can never repay the costs of going after those individuals,” Goldstein says. “If intermediaries can immunize themselves, there is no one effectively for copyright owners to collect from.” THE NEWEST FRONTIER There is another major front in the online copyright wars. Copyright owners have been pushing Con-­ gress to revise the Copyright Act, and they won a significant legislative victory in October when President Bush signed the Pro-IP Act into law. The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for In­tellectual Property Act of 2008, S.3325, shifts some of the burden for copyright enforcement from copyright owners to the government. The law increases funds for local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to investigate criminal copyright and trademark infringements. It also creates the Cabinet-level position of an intellectual property enforcement coordinator with responsibility for coordinating the federal government’s efforts to crack down on infringements. In addition, the law clarifies when civil forfeiture can be used against those allegedly involved in copyright infringement. It empowers U.S. attorneys to get ex parte orders from courts to seize “any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate” criminal copyright infringement. This poses new risks for YouTube, ISPs and other online intermediaries. “Prosecutors could use this provision to seize servers of Internet companies, or threaten to seize them, in order to get these companies to cooperate,” says Jonathan Band, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents NetCoalition, an advocacy group for major Internet companies, including Google, Yahoo and CNet. “This is a very powerful remedy,” Band says. “A pros­ecutor needs to show only probable cause in order to seize the property. To recover the property, the accused must go to court. The burden is on him to show, by preponderance of the evidence, he is innocent.” That could be a very difficult burden for online companies to bear. “If a company took all reasonable measures to stop infringement, it can get its property back,” Band says. “But what are reasonable measures? Should the company have done greater filtering of content supplied by users? It opens up a whole can of worms.” The Pro-IP Act is just the latest instance of copyright owners’ efforts on Capitol Hill. “They are constantly trying to increase the remedies for infringement—increase criminal sanctions, increase civil forfeiture, increase statutory damages,” Band says. “Every year they are trying to do something on the remedies front.” That’s probably because copyright owners have had only limited success in stopping online infringements, despite sending a blizzard of takedown notices and filing thousands of infringement suits. Over the last five years, for instance, the recording industry has filed more than 30,000 lawsuits against individuals who allegedly shared copyrighted songs on peer-to-peer networks, but file-sharing remains a major problem. So copyright owners are looking for more effective ways to enforce their rights in the online world. They are pressing Congress to enact tougher laws against infringement and pushing courts to hold online intermediaries—such as YouTube—liable for their customers’ infringements. Such efforts, however, may be misguided, says Band. “The entertainment industry wants to change the law to protect their existing business models,” he says, “rather than change their business models to adapt to new technology.” Protectionist behavior by copyright owners is nothing new. “There’s a recurrent pattern whenever a new technology crops up,” Litman says. “Existing content industries insist that the new technology must play by the old copyright rules. ... The new companies say that the old rules fit your technology and business models, but they don’t fit our technology and business models. Some­times the older companies impose restrictions that try to stop the new technology, but in the end, the old and new companies reach some compromise.” This time, however, copyright owners may need to compromise with more than just the new online businesses. Content owners may need to reach an understanding with tens of millions of U.S. Internet users. “History tells us that unless the [copyright] rules will accommodate their interests, there will be no stability,” Litman says. “If the public does not see the rules as legitimate, they won’t obey them.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Seidenberg is a lawyer and freelance journalist in Fanwood, N.J., who contributes regularly to the ABA Journal. From stiehm.law at juno.com Mon Apr 13 13:14:53 2009 From: stiehm.law at juno.com (Patrick H. Stiehm) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:14:53 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? Message-ID: <20090413.091453.5092.5.stiehm.law@juno.com> The other side of that coin is that I have seen some judges bar none lawyers from going inside the bar area, except as witnesses, clerks of court, bailiffs and court reporters. You need to know what the judge will permit or ask in advance. Patrick H. Stiehm Stiehm Law Office Alexandria, VA 22309 703-360-1089 (Voice) 703-935-8266 (Fax) On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:57:10 -0700 writes: > Several attorneys that I know have a paralegal with them in court to > assist > with them with document control and whatever else is needed. These > attorneys > are sighted. > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > ____________________________________________________________ Learn to trade with confidence! Online Stock Trading. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFPBVMEsA7xpW5Opk1WfzRN4fcu7GOjSZ0QpuaGTTVgYNkHAw7JIE/ From craig.borne at dot.gov Mon Apr 13 12:52:22 2009 From: craig.borne at dot.gov (craig.borne at dot.gov) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:52:22 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> References: <2B39618215594B10B51418265EA03E8C@noneeb869fea9a> Message-ID: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722D3@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> John, Start with your company's employee policies and procedures manual. In private employment, the relationship is built a lot on the employment agreement, which usually incorporates by reference the employee manual. Check this out first and see if there are any prohibitions on personal mail going out through the company system, privacy with non-company owned materials, etc. Craig Craig Borne NHTSA/DOT (202) 493-0627 craig.borne at dot.gov -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:50 AM To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question Hi Steve, No prior issues and I thought that I got along with her. I have no idea what if anything will happen and don't want to seem litigious but appropriate boundaries have to be established in the workplace. Take care, John John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 505-6642 -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:17 AM To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question It does indicate that this manager may have acted a little strongly, unless there had been other issues with this employee in the past. Have you had other issues with your manager in the past? Do you get along with your manager? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray wayne" To: Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > This seems excessive for a one-time honest mistake. (I didn't know my > employer had an office in Florida. LOL!) > That said, I know that in a government office there is no reasonable > expectation of privacy. That is, my boss can go through my desk drawers > and look at anything he wants. (He'd be bored to tears, of course.) I > suspect the same applies to private employers. > So, if this is a one-time thing it will probably blow over. But be careful > in the future. > Ray Wayne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John was > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > Date: Friday, Apr 10, 2009 19:50:49 > Subject: [bllaw] Employment Question > >> >> >> I need some employment law advice, however, there is an >> overlapping federal >> law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >> corporation >> in a >> non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and today >> I >> inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and before >> I >> realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >> it >> was >> obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just placing >> it >> back >> on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was also >> reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >> not >> want >> me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a >> company >> have the right to open a private communication that is not on >> letterhead, >> not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without first >> contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >> has >> it's >> own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? >> Thanks, >> John >> >> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. >> >> Gainesville, FL 32609 >> >> Phone: (352) 505-6642 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> >> I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was >> raising >> the >> question. I know what I go into court with. >> In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party than >> anyone. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM >> To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >> > The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, >> > but the >> > client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a >> > mistake >> > and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >> > while >> > in >> > court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >> > the >> > courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to criticize >> > you >> > -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would feel >> > very >> > uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your >> > exhibits >> > in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >> > think >> > one >> > should always get an assistant to help out. >> > >> > Rod Alcidonis >> > Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> > Roger Williams University School of Law >> > 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> > Bristol, RI 02809 >> > Home: (401) 824-8685 >> > Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> > E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> > [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >> > On Behalf Of Locke Milholland >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM >> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> > Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? >> > And, if >> > >> > so, how well does it work? >> > >> > Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >> > in the courtroom? >> > >> > So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another >> > attorney who >> > >> > is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Rod Alcidonis" >> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM >> > To: "'Ationfbnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >> > Subject: Re: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> > >> >ar Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. >> >ar Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Rod Alcidonis >> >ar Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. >> >ar Roger Williams University School of Law >> >ar 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 >> >ar Bristol, RI 02809 >> >ar Home: (401) 824-8685 >> >ar Cell: (718) 704-4651 >> >ar E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com >> >ar >> >ar -----Original Message----- >> >ar From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >> >ar Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >> >) >> >ar Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM >> >ar To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> >ar Subject: [bllaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? >> >ar >> >ar Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you >> >ar know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would >> >ar like to speak with you. Please remember that the National Federation >> >ar of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its >> >ar related products. For more information about the reader or to place >> >ar an order please visit >> >ar >> http://knfbreader.michaelhingso >> n.com >> >ar or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. >> >ar >> >ar The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >> >the ar KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and >> >an ar optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The >> >software and ar phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak >> >cost $295.00. The ar entire package including the screen reader >> >option cost $1,665.00 plus ar shipping. ar >> >ar Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate >> >ar technology loan should you need to finance your Reader >> >ar purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site >> >ar given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. >> >ar >> >ar Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally >> >ar mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any >> >ar questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Cordially, >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar Mike Hingson >> >ar >> >ar The Michael Hingson Group >> >ar "Speaking with Vision" >> >ar Michael Hingson, President >> >ar (415) 827-4084 >> >ar >> >ar info at michaelhingson.com >> >ar www.michaelhingson.com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: >> >ar >> > >> http://knfbreader.michaelhings >> on.com >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> >ar com >> >ar >> >ar >> >ar _______________________________________________ >> >ar bllaw mailing list >> >ar blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> >ar http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> >ar To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> >for ar bllaw: ar >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> > ail.com >> >ar >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40h >> otmail. >> > com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bllaw mailing list >> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >> > for >> > bllaw: >> > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland >> %40hotm >> ail.com >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40 >> cox.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bllaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> bllaw: >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rwayne1%40nyc. rr.c om > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley% 40in sightbb.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09 10:51:00 _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox .net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 dot.gov From everett at zufelt.ca Tue Apr 14 07:29:20 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:29:20 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: <7BC490B5-4244-463F-8116-360ED2B11B23@zufelt.ca> On 13-Apr-09, at 10:10 AM, wrote: > Hello all, > Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, > practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free > legal advice? > I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which > comments are given. The purpose of Blind Law is for the discussion of legal matters and topics directly related to blind people and their blindness. This discussion area will be directly monitored by members of the National Association of Blind Lawyers, a division of the National Federation of the Blind. This area is also intended as a means for the members of the National Association of Blind Lawyers to stay in contact with each other. http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org HTH, Everett Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/ezufelt View my LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt From carter.tjoseph at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 07:53:58 2009 From: carter.tjoseph at gmail.com (T. Joseph Carter) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:53:58 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: <20090414075358.GE22983@yumi.bluecherry.net> I believe the intent is the former, but it's a public list that anyone may subscribe to. Joseph On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 09:10:20AM -0400, craig.borne at dot.gov wrote: >Hello all, >Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, >practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free >legal advice? >I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which >comments are given. >Thank you, >Craig > >Craig Borne, Esq. >NHTSA/DOT >(202) 493-0627 >craig.borne at dot.gov From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Apr 14 16:19:31 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:19:31 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice Message-ID: ________________________________ From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:12 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice ________________________________ From: Hunter, Sue [mailto:Sue.Hunter at usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:39 AM To: nromulus at gmail.com; ntb at boglechang.com; ocaaba at cox.net; omanager at lawyerscomm.org; palsd at hotmail.com; patel at fr.com; pchanster at yahoo.com; pchapman at koonz.com; pgrewal at daycasebeer.com; pkim at lordbissell.com; Maurer, Patricia; pmorrison at state.wv.us; poppy.johnston at unlv.edu; president at abaw.org; president at adc.org; president at apabala.org; president at blackwomenlawyersla.org; president at dominicanbarassociation.org; president at mabl.org; president at msba.org; president at phillybarristers.org; president at sabasc.org Subject: FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice To learn more about our attorneys and what they like most about working at DOJ, please visit our attorney profiles at, http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/profiles.htm, and the video clips of our attorneys and interns available at https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/ads/jobsatdojoarm/index.jsp We encourage you to share this email with interested colleagues and peers. If you no longer wish to receive these periodic email announcements, please respond to this email address and ask to be removed from our mailing list. Thank you. Current Department of Justice Attorney Vacancies * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW FLORENCE, AZ VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0047 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW SAN ANTONIO, TX VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0046 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW DENVER, COLORADO VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0045 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BLOOMINGTON, MN VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0044 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER MAY 12, 2009, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL (FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND ARSON DIVISION) ATTORNEY ADVISOR, GS-905-15 WASHINGTON, DC Applications must be received by April 20, 2009, the closing date of this announcement. Date posted: 04-13-2009 * DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. TRUSTEE'S OFFICE -- PHOENIX, ARIZONA TRIAL ATTORNEY Applications must be postmarked by the closing date of and will be accepted up to five calendar days after the closing date (May 4, 2009). Date posted: 04-10-2009 * EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEYS(GS-0905-13/14/15) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION GANG UNIT WASHINGTON, DC Vacancy Number: 09-CRM-GSU-011 Deadline date for submission is July 9, 2009. The cut-off will be the 15th and 30th of each month. Date posted: 04-10-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. TRUSTEE'S OFFICE -- DETROIT, MICHIGAN EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY/GS-12 to GS-15 This position will be open until May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-08-2009 * ATTORNEY-ADVISOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE (CONSOLIDATED LEGAL CENTER) ATLANTA, GEORGIA GS-905-14 This position is open until filled, but no later than April 22, 2009. Date posted: 04-08-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF THE LEGAL PROGRAMS AND POLICY SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY ADVISOR, GS-0905-15 VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NO: 09-EOUSA-39 Application materials must be received by 11:59pm (Eastern Standard Time) on the closing date April 22, 2009. Date posted: 04-08-2009 * EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS DRUG SECTION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-NDDS-010 This position is open until April 27th, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL COMMERCIAL LAW BRANCH ATTORNEY-ADVISOR GS-905-12/13/14 This position is open until filled, but no later than April 21, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 09-AZ-04 Résumé must be received by April 27, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Applications must be postmarked by April 20, 2009. Date posted: 04-07-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES LEGAL DIVISION EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY Applications must be postmarked no later than May 6, 2009. Date posted: 04-06-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 09-SD-001 Applications must be post marked by May 15, 2009. Date posted: 04-06-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAX DIVISION, CRIMINAL APPEALS AND TAX ENFORCEMENT POLICY SECTION WASHINGTON, D.C. TRIAL ATTORNEY / GS-12 to GS-15 The closing date of this announcement is May 6, 2009, and applications should be received no later than the close of business on that date. Date posted: 04-03-2009 * EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS / GS-12 to GS-15 CIVIL DIVISION, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH NATIONAL COURTS SECTION Positions open until filled on a rolling basis. Accordingly, applications should be submitted as early as possible but, in any event, not later than April 20, 2009. Date posted: 04-03-2009 * TRIAL ATTORNEYS, GS-12 THROUGH GS-15 CIVIL DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION APPELLATE LITIGATION WASHINGTON, DC Positions open until filled on a rolling basis. Accordingly, applications should be submitted as early as possible but, in any event, not later than May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-01-2009 The purpose of this email is to advise potential interested persons of employment opportunities at the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of this information. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information. -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com Tue Apr 14 19:13:25 2009 From: ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com (Olusegun -- Victory Associates LTD, Inc.) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:13:25 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] NOTARY PUBLIC? References: <06dd01c83a6c$646a34a0$6801a8c0@computer1> Message-ID: Hi Everyone: I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has owned and operated a notary public; specifically, I'd like to know the approaches used in running one from a blindness perspective. Mega thanks!! Sincerely, Olusegun Denver, Colorado From dandrews at visi.com Wed Apr 15 09:36:43 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:36:43 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Baltimore Sun Op-Ed Piece from Dr. Maurer on Kindle Message-ID: FYI. from the Baltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.blind14apr14,0,2676842.story Bias against blind book lovers By Marc Maurer April 14, 2009 I love to read, and I've been doing it ever since I was able. My wife is also an avid reader. But my wife and I are blind, and because I lead the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind, we have many blind friends. And although many of us read everything we can get our hands on, we can't get our hands on very much to read. There are services for us, of course. Government entities and nonprofit organizations convert books into Braille, audio, or digital form for our use. But only 5 percent of all books published undergo such a conversion. A few more are available as commercial audio books, but these are often abridged, and those that are unabridged are quite expensive. Nowadays, a solution to the problem of reading material is tantalizingly within our reach: the e-book. When Amazon released its new Kindle 2 e-book reader earlier this year, it announced that the device now includes text-to-speech software and can read e-books aloud. Those of us who are blind were filled with joy at this news. For the first time in history, it would now be possible, we hoped, for the blind to do something that everyone else takes for granted: purchase a brand new book and start reading it right away. Our hope quickly turned to despair, however - and then to anger. The Authors Guild doesn't want the Kindle 2 to be able to read books aloud. They say this new capability violates authors' copyrights. This argument has absolutely no basis in copyright law. Reading a print book aloud or having it read aloud to you in the privacy of your home is not a copyright violation; the only difference with the Kindle 2 is that a machine rather than a human being is doing the reading. In the face of this specious attack from the Authors Guild, Amazon initially took the legally and morally correct position that the text-to-speech feature of the Kindle 2 did not violate copyright law. But then the company backed down, saying it would allow authors and publishers to decide which books they would permit to be read aloud by the device. Dismayed, we contacted the Authors Guild. It claimed it did not oppose having e-books read aloud to the blind, as long as there was a national registry of blind people who would then be allowed to unlock the text-to-speech feature. This is wrong. The Authors Guild has no right to discriminate against disabled readers by segregating us into a separate and unequal class. If our sighted friends don't have to "sign up" to be permitted to read, then blind people shouldn't either. And once we buy a book, how we read it is nobody's business but ours. When we told the Authors Guild this, they added insult to injury by telling us that, if we wouldn't sign up for a registry, we would just have to pay extra in order to use text-to-speech. Needless to say, this is outrageous and reprehensible behavior from an organization of people who claim to support equal access to literature by all Americans. Instead of facilitating the free flow of information, the Authors Guild is making itself the arbiter of who is worthy of access to the printed word. The Authors Guild isn't just discriminating against blind people. People with other disabilities - especially brain injuries and conditions like dyslexia - would also benefit from the ability to have books read aloud to them electronically. Groups representing many of these people are joining us to protest the position of the Authors Guild and Amazon's craven response to it. At present, very few of us buy books in any form. If we could have e-books read aloud to us, however, we would happily pay for them. We are an untapped market consisting of some 15 million people to which authors and publishers have never before had direct access. For this reason, the position of the Authors Guild is not only morally repugnant but also bad business. Prohibiting the blind and others from reading commercially available e-books just means that authors and publishers won't get our money. The guild's position hurts both authors and people with print disabilities. In an age when how we get information is constantly and rapidly changing, it's important that people with disabilities have access to it in the same way that it is important for us to have access to physical structures, goods and services. Amazon took an important step in the right direction by including a read-aloud feature on the Kindle 2, but the Authors Guild is now trying to set us back. We are not going to allow them to stand in the doorway of the virtual bookstore to keep us out. Marc Maurer is president of the National Federation of the Blind. His e-mail is officeofthepresident at nfb.org. From dandrews at visi.com Wed Apr 15 10:47:22 2009 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:47:22 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question In-Reply-To: <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot .gov> References: <57E8046F2ECE4811831E64E92D0F421A@noneeb869fea9a> <61017FCC3706464B8ACB770A8038174E3722DC@OSTMAIL03VS3.ad.dot.gov> Message-ID: Well, it is a little of both, but primarily a list for legal professionals, law students, etc. David Andrews, Moderator At 08:10 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote: >Hello all, >Is this a list for attorneys/law students to share legal ideas, >practices, etc. Or is it for the general blind public to seek free >legal advice? >I am just curious, as it will most certainly dictate the way in which >comments are given. >Thank you, >Craig > >Craig Borne, Esq. >NHTSA/DOT >(202) 493-0627 >craig.borne at dot.gov > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >On Behalf Of Bryan Schulz >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:45 PM >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Employment Question > >hi, > >i know squat about law but it seems foolish to mix personal with on the >job. > >Bryan Schulz >The BEST Solution >www.best-acts.com > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John " >To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" >Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:00 PM >Subject: [blindlaw] Employment Question > > > > I need some employment law advice, however, there is an overlapping > > federal > > law question as well. I am a blind attorney and work for a >corporation > > in a > > non attorney capacity. At our company we have outgoing mail and >today I > > inadvertently dropped a piece of personal mail in the box and >before I > > realized what had happened my supervisor called me on the phone and >it > > was > > obvious that she had opened and read my mail instead of just >placing it > > back > > on my desk and giving me an explanation of what happened. I was >also > > reprimanded on the phone and I am sure that this is because she did >not > > want > > me to go on the offensive. Therefore, my question is this: does a > > company > > have the right to open a private communication that is not on > > letterhead, > > not in an envelope bearing the company stationary etc. without >first > > contacting the sender, or the recipient? Secondly, because the mail >has > > it's > > own indicia of privacy, can the company open the outgoing mail? > > Thanks, > > John > > > > John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq. > > > > Gainesville, FL 32609 > > > > Phone: (352) 505-6642 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] >On > > Behalf Of Locke Milholland > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:18 PM > > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > > > > I do not read brail, but it's nott my own exhibits where I was raising >the > > question. I know what I go into court with. > > In family law, the clients usually know more about the other party >than > > anyone. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Rod Alcidonis" > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:03 PM > > To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > > > >> The client? I can see how another attorney doing it is not too bad, > >> but > >> the > >> client? I would never put myself in a position where I would make a > >> mistake > >> and it's because my client misread or misidentify a document to me >while > >> in > >> court. Plus it looks bad to me that client is acting as assistant in >the > >> courtroom. The perception, that is. I am not writing this to >criticize > >> you > >> -- a man gotta do what a man gotta do -- I am just saying I would >feel > >> very > >> uncomfortable doing this. Do you read Braille? Can you label your > >> exhibits > >> in Braille? Because so much is going on visually during a trial, I >think > >> one > >> should always get an assistant to help out. > >> > >> Rod Alcidonis > >> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >> Roger Williams University School of Law > >> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >> Bristol, RI 02809 > >> Home: (401) 824-8685 > >> Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > >> On Behalf Of Locke Milholland > >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:50 AM > >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> > >> Speaking of this reader, has anyone used it in a courtroom setting? > >> And, > >> if > >> > >> so, how well does it work? > >> > >> Also, how do others on this list manage reviewing evidence exhibits >in > >> the courtroom? > >> > >> So far, I have used either the client, an assistant, or another > >> attorney > >> who > >> > >> is free if it's a courtroom with a waiting line for hearings. Locke > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> From: "Rod Alcidonis" > >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM > >> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" > >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >> > >>> Doesn't Humanware have the Mobile Speak for now $195. > >>> Why is it still being sold somewhere else for $295? > >>> > >>> > >>> Rod Alcidonis > >>> Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009. > >>> Roger Williams University School of Law > >>> 10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003 > >>> Bristol, RI 02809 > >>> Home: (401) 824-8685 > >>> Cell: (718) 704-4651 > >>> E-mail: roddj12 at hotmail.com > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] > >>> On > >>> Behalf Of Michael Hingson (by way of David Andrews >) > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:55 PM > >>> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org > >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Purchasing A KNFB Reader Mobile? > >>> > >>> Are you considering the purchase of a KnfbReader Mobile or do you > >>> know someone who may be interested in buying one? If so, I would > >>> like to speak with you. Please remember that the National >Federation > >>> of the Blind is the only National distributor of the Reader and its > >>> related products. For more information about the reader or to place > >>> an order please visit > >>> > > >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.c >om > >>> or please call me, Mike Hingson, at (888) 965-9191. > >>> > >>> The current configuration of the Reader we are providing includes >the > >>> KnfbReader software, the Nokia 6220 Classic mobile phone, and an > >>> optional screen reader either Talks or MobileSpeak. The software >and > >>> phone cost $1,370.00. Either Talks or MobileSpeak cost $295.00. >The > >>> entire package including the screen reader option cost $1,665.00 >plus > >>> shipping. > >>> > >>> Don't forget that the Federation also offers a %3 interest rate > >>> technology loan should you need to finance your Reader > >>> purchase. Information about the loan is available on the web site > >>> given above. We also accept both Visa and MasterCard orders. > >>> > >>> Join the technology revolution today and go totally globally > >>> mobile. Please contact me if you need any information or have any > >>> questions about the Reader. I hope to talk with you soon. > >>> > >>> > >>> Cordially, > >>> > >>> > >>> Mike Hingson > >>> > >>> The Michael Hingson Group > >>> "Speaking with Vision" > >>> Michael Hingson, President > >>> (415) 827-4084 > >>> > >>> info at michaelhingson.com > >>> www.michaelhingson.com > >>> > >>> > >>> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit: > >>> > >> > > >http://knfbreader.michaelhingson. >com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blindlaw mailing list > >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for > >>> blindlaw: > >>> > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm >ail. > >>> com > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blindlaw mailing list > >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for > >>> blindlaw: > >>> > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 >hotm > >> ail.com > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >> blindlaw: > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/roddj12%40hotm >ail. > >> com > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blindlaw mailing list > >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org > >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > >> blindlaw: > >> > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmilholland%40 >hotm > > ail.com > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox >.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbc >global.net > > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40 >dot.gov > >_______________________________________________ >blindlaw mailing list >blindlaw at nfbnet.org >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >for blindlaw: >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 3832 (20090206) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Apr 15 16:16:04 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:16:04 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Looking for paralegal Chuck! Message-ID: Chuck: Could you send me your contact information? My e-mail address is: Noel.nightingale at ed.gov Thanks. Noel From JFreeh at nfb.org Wed Apr 15 18:17:32 2009 From: JFreeh at nfb.org (Freeh, Jessica) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:17:32 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind to Present Second Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind (410) 659-9314, extension 2330 (410) 262-1281 (Cell) cdanielsen at nfb.org National Federation of the Blind to Present Second Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium Kareem Dale, President Obama's Special Assistant for Disability Policy, to Address Gathering and Field Questions Baltimore, Maryland (April 15, 2009): The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) will present the second Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium on April 17, 2009, at the NFB Jernigan Institute in Baltimore. The symposium, entitled "New Perspectives on Disability Law: Advancing the Right to Live in the World" and named for NFB founder and pioneering legal scholar Dr. Jacobus tenBroek (1911-1968), will gather public officials, legal scholars, and disability rights advocates for a full-day seminar on the state of disability law in the United States and the world and will discuss how disability rights may be advanced in the future. Kareem Dale, special assistant for disability policy to United States President Barack Obama, will make a presentation to the gathering. Mr. Dale will speak on the Obama administration's policies on disability issues for approximately thirty minutes followed by a forty-five minute question and answer session. "Our first Jacobus tenBroek symposium was a stunning success, and we are looking forward to once again hosting leading players and thinkers in the disability community," said Dr. Marc Maurer, an attorney and President of the National Federation of the Blind. "Disability law is rapidly changing at the national and international level, and this forum will provide an opportunity for everyone to assess developments and plan strategies in this dynamic and critically important field." Other presenters at the 2009 symposium include Professor Gerard Quinn, National University of Ireland, Galway; Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Professor Samuel Bagenstos, UCLA School of Law; and Professor Peter Blanck, Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek was a constitutional law scholar, a blind professor at Berkeley, and an author of treatises on the Fourteenth Amendment and social welfare. Dr. tenBroek created the concept that civil rights should apply to disabled Americans, and he published extensively on the application of the law to those with disabilities. His efforts to advance civil rights for the blind and others with disabilities included drafting the Model White Cane Law, which has had a profound influence on the development of civil rights laws for the disabled throughout the United States, and publishing authoritative articles like "The Right to Live in the World: The Disabled in the Law of Torts." For more information about the National Federation of the Blind, please visit www.nfb.org. ### From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 16 05:22:15 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:22:15 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Webinar Series: Legal Rights of People with Alcohol/Drug Problems or Criminal Records Message-ID: <472EF221ECD84CD787456BF9B43DDB5F@spike> These are free training that might be of interest. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: Legal Action Center To: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:26 PM Subject: Webinar Series: Legal Rights of People with Alcohol/Drug Problems or Criminal Records If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online. Is it Legal to Discriminate Because of a Person's Alcohol/Drug Problem? Criminal Record? Find out through this Free Webinar Series Know Your Rights: Anti-Discrimination Laws Protecting People with Alcohol and Drug Problems and Criminal Records -------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: April 29th May 13th and 28th June (to be determined) TIME: 1:30 p.m. EST LENGTH: 60 minutes Under the Partners for Recovery Initiative funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Abt Associates and the Legal Action Center invite you to a free webinar series. The webinars will be presented by Legal Action Center attorneys, the nation's leading experts on laws and policies affecting individuals with alcohol/drug problems and criminal records. For more information or to register for one or more of these free 60 minute webinars, click here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- What you will learn: Who is invited? a.. How Federal law protects people in recovery from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and government services and programs b.. Legal protections for people in Medication-Assisted Treatment c.. Legal rights of people with criminal records, including anti-discrimination laws and expungement d.. Strategies to prevent or remedy violations of these laws e.. Federal Mental Health and Addiction Parity Law: Update on Implementation a.. People in treatment and/or recovery and their allies b.. Providers of alcohol/drug treatment, prevention and recovery services c.. Federal and State Government oversight agencies d.. Individuals with criminal records and reentry groups e.. Anyone else interested in these topics Course Offerings TOPIC DATE TIME Employment Discrimination Against People with Alcohol/Drug Histories Details / Register April 29, 2009 1:30 pm (EST) Housing, Health Care, and Other Forms of Discrimination Against People with Alcohol/Drug Histories Details / Register May 13, 2009 1:30 pm (EST) Medication-Assisted Treatment: Special Anti-Discrimination Issues Details / Register May 28, 2009 1:30 pm (EST) Legal Rights of People with Criminal Records Details / Register June Date to be determined TBD New Federal Parity Legislation for Insurance Coverage of Addiction Treatment Details / Register June Date to be determined TBD Can't attend one of the webinars? No problem. The whole series will be repeated during the summer! For more information about the Legal Action Center, visit www.lac.org for more information. For information about the Partners for Recovery Initiative, visit www.pfr.samhsa.gov. This email was sent to ckrugman at sbcglobal.net. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. manage your preferences | opt out using TrueRemove®. Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. email marketing by Sinu powered by From everett at zufelt.ca Fri Apr 17 21:01:15 2009 From: everett at zufelt.ca (E.J. Zufelt) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:01:15 -0300 Subject: [blindlaw] Using discovery from other countries? Message-ID: <38696661-DE0F-42F9-80B3-4000BA5FC5EB@zufelt.ca> Good evening, Not being a lawyer and having never taken a course in evidence, please forgive any ignorance in the following question. Based on a hypothetical situation, would a U.S. court be generally willing to accept evidence that was obtained through the process of discovery in a legal proceeding in another country? Thanks, Everett Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/ezufelt View my LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt From mikefry79 at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 00:16:09 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:16:09 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Using discovery from other countries? In-Reply-To: <38696661-DE0F-42F9-80B3-4000BA5FC5EB@zufelt.ca> References: <38696661-DE0F-42F9-80B3-4000BA5FC5EB@zufelt.ca> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904171716s1fd47fehd89aa8dfb3972cdb@mail.gmail.com> Yes, they'd at least consider accepting it. Only relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant evidence is any thing that tends to prove a material fact in the case more likely than not. Or something along those lines at least. On another note, why did I do this stupid LLM program? I'll tell you the reason, it was because I couldn't get a good job. It's awful. Oh well. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote: > Good evening, > > Not being a lawyer and having never taken a course in evidence, please > forgive any ignorance in the following question. > > Based on a hypothetical situation, would a U.S. court be generally willing > to accept evidence that was obtained through the process of discovery in a > legal proceeding in another country? > > Thanks, > Everett > > Follow me on Twitter > http://twitter.com/ezufelt > > View my LinkedIn Profile > http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From CDanielsen at nfb.org Sat Apr 18 04:48:24 2009 From: CDanielsen at nfb.org (Danielsen, Chris) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:48:24 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Los Angeles Festival of Books Message-ID: Dear Fellow Federationists: The Reading Rights Coalition, led by the National Federation of the Blind, is scheduled to participate in the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. The coalition will have a table set up in one of the festival's exhibit areas so that we may provide the reading and publishing communities with information about our concerns regarding the threatened "turning off" of text-to-speech in books available for Amazon's Kindle 2 electronic reading device. The festival, the largest book fair in the world, will take place on the campus of the University of California at Los Angeles from April 25-26. If you would like to help with our exhibit, please contact Ann-Marie Laney by calling (410) 659-9314, extension 2219, or e-mail her at alaney at nfb.org. Please join us in our continuing efforts to ensure that everyone has access to e-books. From albertsanchez at suddenlink.net Sat Apr 18 04:50:57 2009 From: albertsanchez at suddenlink.net (Albert Sanchez) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:50:57 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] We invite you to join us at a Memorial Service Honoring the life of Paul Kay Message-ID: Dear Federation Friends, I recently received the following message regarding a memorial service for Paul Kay and I am forwarding it for your information since many on this list knew him. Yours in Federationism, Albert Sanchez Al's Piano Tuning & Repair 215 John Avenue Greenville, NC 27858-4113 252-757-3023 ----- Original Message ----- From: LPovinelli at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:00 PM Subject: We invite you to join us at a Memorial Service Honoring the life of Paul Kay We invite you to join us at a Memorial Service Honoring the life of Paul Edward Kay Sunday, May 17, 2009 at three o'clock in the afternoon Temple Adas Israel 2850 Quebec Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20008 Elizabeth Kay Goldstein & Lawrence Povinelli RSVP by Friday, May 8, 2009 (703) 969-6476 or via email at lpovinelli at aol.comm From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 18 14:10:23 2009 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:10:23 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] wanted: your stories of disability versus copyright law Message-ID: The following notice from the Electronic Frontier Foundation may be of interest. Chuck April 15th, 2009 Wanted: Your Stories of Disability Versus Copyright Law Announcement by Danny O'Brien In preparation for WIPO's initiative on Exceptions & Limitations to Copyright, the US Copyright Office is currently soliciting comments on the topic of "facilitating access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities". Written comments are due next week (April 21st, 2009), and there will be a public meeting in Washington on May 18th. EFF will be sending our own submission, as will many other IP and disability groups. But if you've worked on software or hardware to overcome your own visual or other disabilities, or co-operated informally (perhaps in an open source project) to provide wider access to content for users with disabilities, or have dealt with a publisher regarding the accessibility of texts, we'd like to encourage you to send the copyright office your own stories - and cc: us at accessibility at eff.org. Much of current IP law on increasing accessibility to content is concerned with exceptions for narrow conditions or traditional institutions. For instance, the Chafee Amendment provides for free ebooks for the blind, but only through "authorized entities" - such as a dedicated government agency or non-profit organization (e.g. Bookshare ). The Copyright Office's triennial list of exemptions from the DMCA's anti-circumvention laws includes a category for legally unlocking the DRM on ebooks - but if you do so, you are not allowed to market or share tools for removing this DRM to other disabled users. Our experience of innovation in the digital world and its clash with existing IP law is that many overlooked examples come from individual technologists "scratching their personal itch" , as well as loosely-organized groups. If DMCA's anti-circumvention laws (and ebook DRM) have prevented you as an individual, for example, from format-shifting content to a form usable by assistive technology, or even changed the font size of an ebook to a readable level, please send your story. Unexpected applications of new technology are important to raise too: if you are deaf, and wish to benefit from the possibility of "signing books" (many who are deaf from birth have difficulties with learning to read, and benefit from visual hand-signs in the same way that the visually-impaired benefit from simultaneous text-to-speech), write in. As the Register of Copyrights noted when considering the anti-circumvention exemption for ebooks , the transition of media to the digital world block quote perhaps for the first time offer an individual blind person the possibility of "self-help" in making a copy of a literary work perceptible. block quote end We want to make sure that the Copyright Office hears from everyone who is helping themselves, and yet finds their way thwarted by clumsy law or unnecessary technological restrictions. The full text of the Notice of Inquiry is below (and also available as PDF here). [Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)] [Notices] [Page 13268-13270] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr09-110] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Persons With Other Disabilities; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for comments; notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office (Copyright Office) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seek comment on the topic of facilitating access to copyrighted works for ``blind or persons with other disabilities'' \1\ in connection with a forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the topics outlined in the supplementary information section of this notice. The Copyright Office and USPTO also announce a public meeting on the same topic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Various terms are used formally and informally throughout the world. When inquiring about experiences within the United States, the term used in this Notice of Inquiry is that which appears in U.S. copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. 121(d)(2). There, the term ``blind or persons with other disabilities'' is defined to include individuals who are eligible or who may qualify in accordance with the Act entitled ``An Act to provide books for the adult blind,'' approved March 3, 1931 (2 U.S.C. 135a; 46 Stat. 1487). DATES: Initial comments on the Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments are due on April 21, 2009. Reply comments are due on May 4, 2009. The public meeting will be held Monday, May 18, 2009, from 9:30 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments If hand-delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of a comment or a reply comment should be brought to the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Public Information Office, Room LM- 401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (CCAS) located at 2nd and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM-403, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services such as Fedex, United Parcel Service, or DHL. If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Office of Policy and International Affairs, Copyright GC/I & R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Public Meeting The public meeting will be held in the Montpelier Room of the Library of Congress, James Madison Building, 6th Floor, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559. The process for submitting requests to attend and observe or participate in the meeting, as well as the agenda, will be published on the Web site of the U.S. Copyright Office no later than April 8, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Pallante, Associate Register, Policy and International Affairs, or Michele Woods, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at 202-707-1027, by facsimile at 202-707-8366 or by electronic mail at mpall at loc.gov or mwoo at loc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The United States is a Member State of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and an active member of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). At recent meetings of the SCCR, WIPO facilitated discussions on the topic of copyright limitations and exceptions, including limitations and exceptions for ``blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons.'' \2\ At its next meeting (May 25-29, 2009), the SCCR will continue to consider this topic, among others, and will exchange information and experiences in order to deepen its collective understanding of the issues. As part of the process, the SCCR is looking to the copyright limitations and exceptions that are currently available for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons around the world, and has invited Member States to provide supplementary information regarding their national laws and experiences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ This term appears in some relevant WIPO documents. See e.g. ``Conclusions of the SCCR,'' November 5-7, 2008, at http:// www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_www_ 112533.pdf (last visited on March 20, 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In preparation for the meeting, the Copyright Office and the USPTO have been gathering relevant information. To date, the Copyright Office and USPTO have participated in a series of informal meetings and conference calls (primarily with stakeholders from the blind community, but also with representatives of the library, book publishing, software, motion picture, and nonprofit sectors) in which multiple specific issues have been identified and a number of common points have emerged. On the basis of these preliminary discussions, the Copyright Office and the USPTO understand that blind and other persons with disabilities in the United States navigate many complex challenges when it comes to accessing copyrighted works. Common refrains include delays in obtaining accessible texts (with timeliness of accessible materials a particular problem for students at all levels), compatibility problems between available formats and the hardware devices employed by the reader, and inconsistencies in the quality and accuracy of the available, reformatted works. At the international level, the Copyright Office and the USPTO were made aware of the existing framework through which accessible works move across borders (i.e. through private agreement and interlibrary [[Page 13269]] programs), as well as some of the difficulties the framework presents. Possible Actions Through discussions with stakeholders and previous meetings of the SCCR, the Copyright Office and USPTO are aware of some measures that might be appropriate for action at the national or international levels (through Member States, WIPO or other mechanisms). Such possible actions include the following: (1) Developing standardized accessibility formats and other technical norms; (2) establishing trusted intermediaries to coordinate resources, eliminate unnecessary duplication of accessible works, and ensure best practices; (3) providing technical assistance, coordination, and educational outreach; (4) promoting market-based solutions achieved through private sector copyright licenses or other agreements; and (5) developing binding or non-binding international instruments, including a treaty that would establish minimum requirements for limitations and exceptions for blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons. The Copyright Office and the USPTO are interested in learning how these areas of focus might address existing difficulties with access to copyright works, whether applied alone or in combination with each other. Suggestions as to measures not covered above are also welcome. Please note that WIPO posts various documents from its meetings on its Web site, including reports and agendas related to the consideration of copyright limitations and exceptions. Documents from SCCR meetings that included consideration of this issue can be found by starting at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/topic.jsp?group_id=62 and following the link to information for each specific meeting. A study on copyright limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired can be found at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_ id=75696. Subjects of Inquiry At this time, in order to allow further opportunity for interested persons to provide their views, the Copyright Office and the USPTO are seeking comment on several focused topics related to the provision of access to copyrighted works for blind and other persons with disabilities. Unless otherwise specified, the focus of the inquiry is the experiences of interested parties residing or doing business in the United States. Nevertheless, parties should not feel constrained from describing transnational experiences and situations if they are illustrative of a problem or success. A. Experiences of Persons Within the United States With Respect To Accessing U.S. Works or Sharing Accessible Copies Within the United States In general, the Copyright Office and the USPTO seek to learn more about the experiences of the blind or persons with other disabilities with respect to accessing and sharing U.S. copyrighted works within the United States. Please reference any specific policies, practices and projects that exist or are emerging in the education, library and business sectors while considering the questions set forth below. 1. Applicable Statutory or Regulatory Provisions: The United States has relevant existing limitations on exclusive rights in the Copyright Act. Section 121 (the so-called ``Chafee Amendment'') authorizes the reproduction of copyrighted works for blind or other persons with disabilities under certain circumstances. Section 121(a) contains general language providing that it is not copyright infringement ``for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are produced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.'' Section 121(c) provides a specific limitation applicable to publishers of ``print instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools'' so that they may create and distribute electronic files consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 17 U.S.C. 21(c). Those electronic files must use the National Instructional Material Accessibility Standard (NIMAS). Id. How have the Chafee Amendment and related statutory and regulatory provisions worked in practice? 2. Private Sector Initiatives: The Copyright Office and the USPTO are aware that book publishers have been involved in the development and implementation of Section 121 and other laws applicable to disabilities and education. What are additional ways in which the private sector facilitates, or plans to facilitate, access to copyrighted works? Please identify and describe in detail any existing business models, licensing schemes, or technological innovations that are relevant, not only for books but for other copyrighted works, e.g., magazines, newspapers, motion pictures, and software. To date, what has been the result of these efforts in terms of achieving accessible content? Do best practices exist? Turning to the nonprofit sector, what are the activities, business models, or technology platforms that have emerged and what has been the result to date? What if any are the additional projects under consideration? 3. Library Programs: Libraries play an important role in providing access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities. The Library of Congress, through its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, provides Braille and audio materials (e.g., talking books) to eligible borrowers through cooperating libraries in the United States. NLS also provides interlibrary loan services to citizens of other countries through qualified libraries or other institutions in those countries. Private organizations, such as Bookshare, provide access to digital materials through an online searchable library. What other sorts of libraries or library services currently facilitate access to copyrighted works? What physical and digital delivery methods are being used? What initiatives have libraries taken to develop new services and to respond to evolving needs and technologies? What coordination exists among national and international library services? 4. Standardized Formats, Programs and Devices: In recent years, entrepreneurs and other representatives of the blind or persons with other disabilities have made significant progress in efforts to upgrade and standardize the technical formats, programs and devices that allow access to books and other text. These include the talking-book format of DAISY (Digital Accessible Information System) that is compatible with screen readers, as well as stationary and portable DAISY players that feature synthetic-voices, and various versions of scan-and-read software. Paper-based Braille has evolved into digital formats that offer refreshable displays and nonlinear search capabilities when used with applicable devices. Are there additional innovations in use or under development today and, if so, what is their focus? What are the impediments, and possible solutions, for improving existing standardized formats, programs and devices, developing new ones, and/or facilitating their interoperability? 5. Resources: To what degree is a lack of sufficient resources a factor in providing access to the blind or persons with other disabilities? What governmental, private sector, nonprofit, or philanthropic resources exist? What types of resources are most needed? [[Page 13270]] What approaches to expanding available resources are most promising? What objectives could be met and in what time frame if additional resources were available? B. Experiences of Persons Within the United States With Respect To Accessing Foreign Works or Sharing Accessible Copies of U.S. Works With Foreign Persons Please comment on the experiences of the blind or persons with other disabilities with respect to accessing foreign works within the United States, or sharing accessible copies of U.S. works with similarly-situated persons outside the United States. What kinds of specific policies, practices and projects exist or are emerging in the education, library and business sectors? How do existing laws create incentives or constrain efforts? Please describe the ways in which technology has influenced or could assist in providing access to foreign works or the sharing of accessible copies. What are the legal or practical impediments to transnational access and how are they interrelated? C. Other Comments on Facilitating and Enhancing Access to Copyrighted Works Please comment on the likely success of measures identified above under the subsection entitled ``Possible Actions'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. How might the measures best be leveraged, alone or in combination, to enhance access for the blind or other persons with disabilities? Are there additional governmental or private sector actions that might serve the objective of enhancing access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities? Dated: March 20, 2009. Maria Pallante, Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office. [FR Doc. E9-6637 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wanted-your-stories-disability From Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov Mon Apr 20 20:44:22 2009 From: Tim.Ford at cdph.ca.gov (Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS)) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:44:22 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With Disabilities Message-ID: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B73C@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With Disabilities; Notice of Public Meeting http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ Background The United States is a Member State of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and an active member of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). At recent meetings of the SCCR, WIPO facilitated discussions on the topic of copyright limitations and exceptions, including limitations and exceptions for "blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons." At its next meeting (May 25-29, 2009), the SCCR will continue to consider this topic and will exchange information and experiences in order to deepen its collective understanding of the issues. As part of the process, the SCCR is looking to the copyright limitations and exceptions that are currently available for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons around the world, and has invited Member States to provide supplementary information regarding their national laws and experiences. In order to allow interested persons to provide their views, the United States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office have published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on several focused topics related to the provision of access to copyrighted works for blind or other persons with disabilities. Additionally, a public meeting will be held on May 18, 2009 to facilitate a live exchange of views and information on this topic. Federal Register Notice (March 26, 2009) Public Meeting Provisional Agenda and Procedures Request to Participate Submit Comments Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 (202) 707-3000 From mikefry79 at gmail.com Mon Apr 20 22:41:31 2009 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:41:31 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With Disabilities In-Reply-To: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B73C@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> References: <839F18076C66C345BD1C0A4ACA67A1F60315B73C@dhsexcmsg12.intra.dhs.ca.gov> Message-ID: <8c58e54a0904201541y33d5ba87lf2ff149f63c7e4de@mail.gmail.com> I've a feeling that the WIPO will be sympatheic to our desires. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Ford, Tim (CDPH-OLS) wrote: > > Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments on the Topic of Facilitating > Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons With > Disabilities; Notice of Public Meeting > http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ > > Background > > The United States is a Member State of the World Intellectual Property > Organization (WIPO) and an active member of the Standing Committee on > Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). At recent meetings of the SCCR, > WIPO facilitated discussions on the topic of copyright limitations and > exceptions, including limitations and exceptions for "blind, visually > impaired and other reading-disabled persons." At its next meeting (May > 25-29, 2009), the SCCR will continue to consider this topic and will > exchange information and experiences in order to deepen its collective > understanding of the issues. As part of the process, the SCCR is looking > to the copyright limitations and exceptions that are currently available > for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and other > reading-disabled persons around the world, and has invited Member States > to provide supplementary information regarding their national laws and > experiences. > > In order to allow interested persons to provide their views, the United > States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark > Office have published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on several > focused topics related to the provision of access to copyrighted works > for blind or other persons with disabilities. Additionally, a public > meeting will be held on May 18, 2009 to facilitate a live exchange of > views and information on this topic. > > Federal Register Notice > (March 26, 2009) > Public Meeting Provisional Agenda and Procedures Request to Participate > Submit Comments > > Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | > Library of Congress > > U.S. Copyright Office > 101 Independence Ave. S.E. > Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 > (202) 707-3000 > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From JFreeh at nfb.org Tue Apr 21 23:14:51 2009 From: JFreeh at nfb.org (Freeh, Jessica) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:14:51 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Reading Rights Coalition to Participate in LA Times Festival of Books Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Chris Danielsen Director of Public Relations National Federation of the Blind (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330 (410) 262-1281 (Cell) cdanielsen at nfb.org Reading Rights Coalition to Participate in LA Times Festival of Books Readers with Print Disabilities Will Urge Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books Los Angeles, California (April 21, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition will participate in the LA Times Festival of Books to educate authors about the need to enable text-to-speech for books available for Amazon’s Kindle 2 reading device. The LA Times Festival of Books will take place April 25–26 at the University of California at Los Angeles and the Reading Rights Coalition will be in booth #207 located in zone B. The coalition includes the blind, people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, seniors losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering from strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on the Kindle 2 promises for the first time easy, mainstream access to over 260,000 books. Deborah Kent, who is blind and has written over one hundred books for children and young adults, said: “As both a blind person and a writer, I understand the importance of access to books for people of all ages and using all kinds of reading methods. The inclusion of text-to-speech in e-books for the Kindle 2 will help many young people with print disabilities to gain access to books, thereby ensuring that they will receive an equal education.” Randy Shaw, who will be speaking at the Book Festival about his new book, Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century and is the author of The Activist’s Handbook, said: “As a writer, I see e-books not as a potential threat to my rights but as a way for my work to reach a broader market. Readers who have never purchased books before because they were inaccessible will now join the book-buying public, increasing the revenue and reach of writers on every subject and in every literary genre.” Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The issue of text-to-speech in e-books for the Kindle 2 is not one of copyrights but of civil rights. The Reading Rights Coalition stands for the principle that when an individual has lawfully purchased an e-book, he or she should be able to read it in whatever medium is most suitable for him or her. This principle advances the work of writers rather than taking rights away from them, and it allows people for whom reading was either an impossibility or a chore to join the mainstream of society. We hope to persuade our friends in the literary community that it is in their best interest to make their books available with text-to-speech, but in any event we will not stop our campaign until everyone has access to e-books.” For more information about the Reading Rights Coalition, please visit www.readingrights.org. To sign our petition, go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read. If you are an author who supports our cause, please send your contact information to readingrights at nfb.org. From lfeingold1 at earthlink.net Thu Apr 23 20:45:40 2009 From: lfeingold1 at earthlink.net (Lainey Feingold) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:45:40 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] New web accessibility and tactile point of sale announcement Message-ID: please distribute as appropriate Dear colleagues: Staples announced today that it has agreed to make its web site accessible to people with disabilities and to install tactile keypads at flat screen pos devices. This announcement is the result of the 34th Agreement reached without litigation using the Structured Negotiations process. 11 of those agreements require accessible websites. Details of the Staples announcement below. A list of all agreements reached with the Structured Negotiations process, including web agreements with Bank of America, Rite-Aid and the three U.S. credit reporting agencies, can be found at: http:// lflegal.com/negotiations/#agreements Staples agrees to web access / tactile point of sale devices Staples, the world's largest office products company, announced today that it will be designing its website to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines issued by the World Wide Web consortium. Staples has also agreed to install tactile keypads at its point of sale devices so that people who have difficulty reading information on a touchscreen do not have to disclose their PIN and other confidential information. Staples worked with the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and its Massachusetts and California affiliates through the Structured Negotiations process. Lainey Feingold and Linda Dardarian represented the organizations. The press release is available at: http://lflegal.com/2009/04/staples-press/ The full settlement agreement is posted at: http://lflegal.com/2009/04/staples-settlement-agreement/ Lainey Feingold Law Office of Lainey Feingold http://LFLegal.com 510.548.5062 LF at LFLegal.com From m1receive at rfbd.org Tue Apr 28 01:27:53 2009 From: m1receive at rfbd.org (RFB&D Member Update) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:27:53 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Introducing downloadable AudioPlus! Message-ID: RFB&D members banner Click here to view this email as a web page Now RFB&D’s AudioPlus® DAISY books are just a download away! Dear Member, Formerly available on CD only, RFB&D’s AudioPlus books offer the variable speed, bookmarking and navigational features you count on and are now downloadable. No worries about CD mailings, storage or returns. All of our 50,000 books are now available to you in downloadable DAISY format. Getting started is easy! Simply visit the AudioPlus support website or call 800-221-4792 for further details and assistance. Plus, expanded 24/7 service and support We are delighted to inform you that we are moving to 24/7 member service and support. Now, RFB&D provides you direct and instant access to our products, educator tools and member services and support. RFB&D is committed to providing you with the same excellent service you have come to expect at www.rfbd.org, by contacting custserv at rfbd.org or calling member services at 800-221-4792. We look forward to continue serving your future needs. Sincerely, RFB&D This is a commercial message. If you would prefer not to receive further announcements from RFB&D, please click on the following link. Unsubscribe -PVTL:enUS: QjFRBFpoBnAJ++t2JgJGzs- © 2009, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, Incorporated. All rights reserved. 20 Roszel Road, Princeton, NJ 08540 Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic®, RFB&D®, AudioPlus®, Learning Through Listening®, the Heart and Headphones design, and all trademarks and service marks are owned by Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, Incorporated. From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Apr 29 00:23:32 2009 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:23:32 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice Message-ID: ________________________________ From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:12 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice ________________________________ From: Hunter, Sue [mailto:Sue.Hunter at usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:26 PM To: mike at imba.com; Mikediv201 at aol.com; minorities at abanet.org; mjain at gdblegal.com; mlorenzo at graycary.com; nawl at nawl.org; ncai at ncai.org; nedy at wyjlaw.com; newmedia at ja.org; Neysas at dnfsb.gov; Maurer, Patricia; nijc at aol.com; nlove at opd.state.md.us; nmcconnell at jackscamp.com; noconnell at tabinc.org; noryrp at cox.net; nromulus at gmail.com; ntb at boglechang.com; ocaaba at cox.net; omanager at lawyerscomm.org; palsd at hotmail.com; patel at fr.com; pchanster at yahoo.com; pchapman at koonz.com; pgrewal at daycasebeer.com; pkim at lordbissell.com; Maurer, Patricia; pmorrison at state.wv.us; poppy.johnston at unlv.edu; president at abaw.org; president at adc.org; president at apabala.org; president at blackwomenlawyersla.org; president at dominicanbarassociation.org; president at mabl.org; president at msba.org; president at phillybarristers.org; president at sabasc.org; president at southasianbar.org Subject: FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice To learn more about our attorneys and what they like most about working at DOJ, please visit our attorney profiles at, http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/profiles.htm, and the video clips of our attorneys and interns available at https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/ads/jobsatdojoarm/index.jsp We encourage you to share this email with interested colleagues and peers. If you no longer wish to receive these periodic email announcements, please respond to this email address and ask to be removed from our mailing list. Thank you. Current Department of Justice Attorney Vacancies * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS The closing date for this announcement is May 8, 2009. Date posted: 04-24-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS / GS-12 ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER OIP-09-001 This position is open until filled, but applications must be received no later than May 15, 2009. Date posted: 04-24-2009 * APPELLATE ATTORNEYS, GS-13 THROUGH GS-15 CIVIL DIVISION, APPELLATE STAFF WASHINGTON, DC These positions are open until filled, but no later than May 4, 2009. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL SENIOR COUNSEL (SL) All applications must be received no later than April 29, 2009. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY/ GS-12 TO GS-14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, TORTS BRANCH OFFICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND SPECIALIZED TORTS Position is open until filled. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEY (GS-12 to GS-15) CIVIL DIVISION, TORTS BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LITIGATION Applications must be received by close of business or postmarked (only if mailed) on or by May 15, 2009. Date posted: 04-22-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW LOS FRESNOS, TX VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0051 Applications received after May 19, 2009, will not be considered. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * IMMIGRATION JUDGE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW ELOY, AZ VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: EOIR-09-0050 Applications received after May 19, 2009, will not be considered. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * TRIAL ATTORNEY (GS-0905-13/14/15) DOMESTIC SECURITY SECTION WASHINGTON, DC VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-DSS-014 Applications for this announcement must be received by July 20, 2009. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL EXPERIENCED TRIAL ATTORNEY, GS-15 This announcement closes on May 04, 2009. Date posted: 04-21-2009 * FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CONSOLIDATED LEGAL CENTER METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY-ADVISOR GS-905-12/13 This position is open until filled, but no later than May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-17-2009 * ATTORNEY-ADVISOR / GS-0905/13 TO GS-0905/14 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JUSTICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL WASHINGTON, D.C. This position is open until filled; however, resumes should be fax-ed or postmarked by May 1, 2009. Date posted: 04-17-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION OFFICE OF OVERSEAS PROSECUTORIAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY / GS-14 to GS-15 (Active Response Corps) VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-OPDAT-013 Applications will be accepted until filled. Date posted: 04-17-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. TRUSTEE'S OFFICE -- ORLANDO, FL TRIAL ATTORNEY Applications must be postmarked by the closing date of May 14, 2009 and will be accepted up to five calendar days after the closing date. Date posted: 04-16-2009 * TRIAL ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION WASHINGTON, D.C. VACANCY ANNOUCEMENT NUMBER: 09-CRM-CCIPS-012 Applications must be postmarked by May 16, 2009. Date posted: 04-15-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 09-WDNY-004 Applications will be accepted until the position is filled, with a first cut-off date of April 30, 2009. Selection may be made from those applications received by April 30, 2009. Date posted: 04-15-2009 * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION OFFICE OF OVERSEAS PROSECUTORIAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY / GS-14 to GS-15 Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Date posted: 04-15-2009 * ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (CRIMINAL) UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION (BALTIMORE) ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 09-MD-12 The announcement will close on May 6, 2009, therefore, resumes, cover letters and transcripts must be e-mailed or received by the closing date. Date posted: 04-14-2009 The purpose of this email is to advise potential interested persons of employment opportunities at the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of this information. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information. -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From dkent5817 at worldnet.att.net Wed Apr 29 18:43:40 2009 From: dkent5817 at worldnet.att.net (Deborah Kent Stein) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:43:40 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Fw: Looking for Stories about Inspiring Individuals Message-ID: Hi, Dave, Please post this to the NFB lists. It might be an opportunity for one or more Federationists to receive some well-deserved recognition and to spread the word about the abilities and achievements of blind people. Thanks! Debbie _______________ Looking for Stories about Inspiring Individuals Who do you know that deserves recognition for their efforts, sacrifices, and service to others? We are compiling stories in an upcoming book about individuals whose selfless devotion and accomplishments are inspiring, and whose enduring commitment is making this world a better place. Please tell us: · What did this person accomplish or is currently doing that you feel has made a difference for the better? · Was there a specific incident or turning point that compelled him or her to take action? · Is there anything else that you can tell us that makes him/her exceptional or unique? YOUR INFORMATION: Name: Email address: Phone: YOUR NOMINEE’S INFORMATION: Name: Email address: Phone: Website: The deadline to send us information is June 1, 2009. We hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Katie Rountree russtree at aol.com and Jody Feagan jodyville at yahoo.com Jody Feagan Founder/Director San Miguel Writers' Conference & Workshops www.sanmiguelworkshops.com US Phone: 323/306/4068 Local # in San Miguel de Allende (Mexico): 152-0478