[blindlaw] Accessible legislation/law beyond 17 U.S.C. § 121

Sat Feb 7 02:07:50 UTC 2009

How can you reproduce a book yourself in an accessible format if not by 
using a copyrighted book? I think what's been said here is that if you scan 
a book for your own use, per se this is not a copyright violation; however, 
if you scan a book and give a copy of that electronic file to all of your 
friends, then it becomes a violation because in this case it would not have 
been solely for your own use. It doesn't matter that you did not receive 
compensation, sharing of copyrighted materials is illegal. As been pointed 
out, if you wish to sell the book, you must destroy the electronic copy you 
scanned. There is an argument that you are not even permitted to give that 
electronic copy to another blind person because you are not a "not for 
profit organization" authorized to do that. In other words, what's 
considered copyrighted is the actual book, not the electronic version. 
Because you went and scanned it and made it accessible, does not turn it 
into your property. In other words, you still own only one copy of the book, 
not two.

If you really want to get down with this, one can even argue that the 
electronic text has to always accompany the actual hard copy of the book, 
but this would go to the extreme and it clearly gets ridiculous beyond that.

Rod Alcidonis
Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009.
Roger Williams University School of Law
10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003
Bristol, RI 02809
Cell: 718-704-4651
Home: 401-824-8685

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <chatter8712 at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw]Accessible legislation/law beyond 17 U.S.C. § 121

That would be true, but I was refering to a book that you yourself
produced in an alternative format.

On 2/6/09, Dennis Clark <dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hello,
> What you have presented is your interpretation of what common sense tells
> you the statute must mean.  Unfortunately, with statutes, we are stuck 
> with
> the exact language of the statute, and court opinions which have 
> interpreted
> the meaning of the statute. As a lawyer you could make this argument to a
> court, but the reality is that the statute does not specifically say what
> you are reading into it.  Consequently, you would need to find a federal
> court opinion which presents your view, and I am not aware of one which
> does.
>
> The Chafee amendment specifies that only nonprofit entities that produce
> books in alternative formats for the blind may distribute them.  It does 
> not
> say that a blind person who has received a copyrighted work in an
> alternative format from an authorized entity, may himself distribute his
> copy to anyone else who is also blind, even when he does not retain any
> copies.  This argument suggests that a slight twist on the first sale
> doctrine is present in the Chafee amendment, but I am not aware of any
> source to support this idea.  The first sale doctrine is what permits you 
> to
> resell or give away a patented or copyrighted product which you purchased.
> Without the first sale doctrine, you would never be able to resell a
> copyrighted or patented product which you legitimately purchased, because
> selling a copyrighted or patented product when you do not own the
> intellectual property rights is the very definition of infringement.
>
> My legal advice based on a strict reading of the Chafee amendment to a
> client who wishes to give a Braille book produced by a nonprofit entity, 
> is
> that they should return the Braille book to the nonprofit entity which
> originally produced it, along with instructions to ship the Braille book 
> to
> the other blind party.  The reason for the nonprofit to be the decider of
> who should receive books in alternative formats, is that they have
> established procedures in place to determine who is actually blind or
> reading disabled, and therefore authorized to receive materials in
> alternative formats.
>
> The blind owner of the book we are discussing has no medical documentation
> to know for a fact that the party he is giving the Braille book to is
> actually reading disabled.  The recipient for example could be sighted, 
> and
> then scan the Braille book into a computer using software which will 
> convert
> grade 2 Braille into an electronic file, and then use that file to print 
> out
> illegal copies of the copyrighted work in print.  Seems like a lot of 
> work,
> but it could be done, and this is what the law is attempting to prevent.
>
> Moreover, if the Chafee amendment permits us to redistribute books in
> alternative formats for use by the blind so long as we do not retain a 
> copy
> for ourselves, we could redistribute Bookshare and RFB books without
> violating the copyright act.  We would of course be violating our 
> membership
> agreement with Bookshare and RFB, but that is a question of contract law,
> not copyright law.  Clearly Bookshare and RFB believe this would violate 
> the
> Chafee amendment and that is why their membership agreement prohibits us
> from giving copies of books obtained from them to other   blind people.
>
> Copyright law presents interesting questions.
>
> Regards,
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <chatter8712 at gmail.com>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw]Accessible legislation/law beyond 17 U.S.C. § 121
>
>
> I think that the main point in this, like all copyright cases, is
> complete relinquishment of the material. If you give the modified
> materialto another student and relinquish your right to the material
> (you don't keep any copy, digital or otherwise) it's completely legal.
> Same as if I sold a CD I had not ripped to someone else.
>
> On 2/6/09, Dennis Clark <dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Does this mean that I can not give my Braille calculus book to another
>> student, or sell it to him for the same price I paid for the 
>> thermoforming
>> of the book?  A strict reading of the Chafee amendment would appear to
>> prohibit this.  The NFB is setting up a website to assist us in
>> redistributing our Braille books to others.  Should we worry about
>> copyright
>> infringement?
>> Dennis
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "James Pepper" <b75205 at gmail.com>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw]Accessible legislation/law beyond 17 U.S.C. § 121
>>
>>
>> Here is the law:
>> (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section
>> 106<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html>,
>> it is not an infringement of copyright 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 reproduced 
>> or
>> distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other
>> persons with disabilities.
>> (b) (1) Copies or phonorecords to which this section applies shall— (A)
>> not
>> be reproduced or distributed in a format other than a specialized format
>> exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities;
>> (B) bear a notice that any further reproduction or distribution in a
>> format
>> other than a specialized format is an infringement; and
>> (C) include a copyright notice identifying the copyright owner and the
>> date
>> of the original publication.
>> (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to standardized,
>> secure, or norm-referenced tests and related testing material, or to
>> computer programs, except the portions thereof that are in conventional
>> human language (including descriptions of pictorial works) and displayed
>> to
>> users in the ordinary course of using the computer programs.
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindlaw:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dennisgclark%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/chatter8712%40gmail.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/dennisgclark%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/chatter8712%40gmail.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