[blindlaw] West Publishing

[E.J. Zufelt]

Good evening James,

As I am sure you are aware there is a difference between real property, chattel, and intellectual property.  So, feel free to "take away" all of my intellectual property, I don't want it, only the benefit of its use (which all can share simultaneously), Please don't take away my real property or chattel, I'm not done with it yet... but you can have it when I am.

More seriously, I was wondering if you, or anyone else, can explain to me why they think there is actually a benefit to society as a whole to having intellectual content treated as property? I would also be interested in hearing why intellectual property should all be in the public domain.

Thanks,
Thanks, 
Everett Zufelt
http://zufelt.ca

Follow me on Twitter
http://twitter.com/ezufelt

View my LinkedIn Profile
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt



On 2010-09-01, at 9:42 PM, James Pepper wrote:

> Well if you want to give away other people's property then what stops anyone
> from taking everything you own in the name of fairness.  After all you are
> not using it to the best advantage, I can use it better.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, James Pepper <b75205 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The law for accessibility in documents is Section 508 and you can lay out
>> your content correctly and still not be accessible.  The problem here is
>> that there is no clear cut solution, whereas with a wheel chair ramp the
>> solution is obvious, you build it, but with accessibility in electronic
>> documents all you have to do is prove that the doucment is section 508
>> compliant and that is that.
>> 
>> Section 508 is not accessibility.  We all know this right here on this
>> list.  What is needed is a definition of accessibility that is a real
>> solution and is not a plessy versus ferguson type of situation where people
>> claim that accessibility is in existence but it doesn't actually work.
>> 
>> We are in the same boat.  The problem which has not been defined and I
>> define it here, is that software companies are only concerned with the
>> solution as it holds for their own software, they seek out section 508
>> compliance and that is all they can do.  They do not make their content
>> accessible to a wide range of products because you cannot anticipate all of
>> the scenarios and so we are stuck in this situation where a publisher can
>> lay out their content as accessible in section 508 and yet be completely
>> inaccessible when it gets to market.
>> 
>> There are so many variables that it is a miracle that anything is
>> accessible.
>> 
>> But if you want it to work every time, you will have to pay for it.  And
>> don't look now but when a company makes its ramps accessible to the disabled
>> that cost is recouped in the price of their product but you guys want them
>> to give away books for free. Should houses be free for the blind, give away
>> free cars.   I think we should re-evaluate this free book plan because there
>> is no incentive to innovate in accessibility.  Why should anyone fix this if
>> there is no benefit other than a pat on the back to solve this problem?  You
>> want your books for free, so does everyone else.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lists%40zufelt.ca