[blindlaw] Fw: Reading RightsCoalitionUrgesAuthors toAllow Everyone Access to E-books

Wed Apr 1 15:42:36 UTC 2009

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 <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/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