[blindlaw] Fw: Reading Rights Coalition UrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books
Angie Matney
angie at mpmail.net
Wed Apr 1 12:01:04 UTC 2009
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 <everett at zufelt.ca> 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
>>>> <slabarre at labarrelaw.com>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
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list