[Blindtlk] Explaining why copyright law supports NFB not Authors Guild

[Rovig, Lorraine]

I've been thinking about how best to explain to folks that blind persons
and others have a right to read through OCR software on the Kindle 2
without sounding like I'm saying blind persons deserve free stuff just
because they are blind and, no, we are not taking bread out the mouths
of authors. As I understand it, the law supports NFB's position. Here's
what I say... 

Blind persons, dyslexic persons, and others who cannot read print,
currently need and use OCR software to read print they have downloaded
to their computers.  The Kindle 2 is a computer with already built-in
OCR software. Non-print readers hunger for the mega-library from which
one can buy books through Amazon.com (via the Kindle 2 and its one-click
online shopping feature).  As the protest in New York showed, blind
readers and others who use OCR software will buy books and a Kindle
(once it is updated to permit blind access to the controls, which Amazon
says it will do).  There is no downside to the authors' wallets.
Actually, they would sell many more books. Arguments from the Authors
Guild about OCR-read books not being covered "in the contract" which
authors have with publishers does not hold because the copyright law
permits "private performance" of print materials.  Once you have bought
a book, you may read the print yourself or have another read it to you.
Today this other person may actually be OCR software.  Recorded books
are a "different" version of a book and are covered by contract.  OCR
software is the same book through mechanical means. It appears the
Authors Guild has gotten incorrect advice from its lawyers on how to
help the best-selling authors, the top 10 percent of whose books get put
into recorded formats.  The other 90 percent of authors who are lucky to
have their book sell in print will miss sales they could get if Kindle
2's OCR was encouraged.   Say...What is that word for the unimaginative
people who thought smashing newly invented machines would prevent the
Industrial Revolution?

Cordially,

Lorraine Rovig