[blindlaw] Question

Tue Oct 17 04:47:47 CDT 2006

Hello Dennis:

Ross Doerr here in Maine.

Just a quick question - back in April you'd mentioned that there would be
something to report on Black's law dictionary being available for us blind
attorneys.
Has anyting come of that yet? I hope - I sure could use it - if its in a
usable form.
If its available, could y ou let me know where and how much it costs please?
Now if someone could just get West to be more user friendly for the blind...
Thanks.

Ross A. Doerr Esq.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dennis Clark" <dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question

> Hello Ross,
> I apologize for taking so long to get back to you on this.  I have pasted
> below the content of the message I sent a few months ago.  Also, items
such
> as Blacks law will be available within the next month or possibley two
> months at the latest.  Ican not say more about this yet, but I will be
> making an announcement soon.
> All the best,
> Dennis
>
> Hello Everyone,
> I have taken some time since my last post to do some research on the topic
> of the legality of sharing books among ourselves.  I stand by all that I
> said
> in the prior post, and I have additional information an analysis for those
> interested in the topic.  There are two legal conclusions and discussion
> that
> I hope will put these conclusions into perspective.
> Legal Conclusion 1.
> Both blind and sighted people are permitted under the fair use provisions
of
> the 1976 Copyright Act, to make a copy of a book for a blind person
without
> permission from anyone, including the publisher.  Therefore, if I have a
> print copy of a book, and you contact me and ask me for a copy because you
> are
> blind, I can legally scan the book for you and provide you with an
> electronic copy.  This is equally true for you.  If you have a copy of a
> book in print
> which you may or may not have already scanned in for your own use, and I
ask
> you to scan in a copy for me since I am blind, this is indisputably legal
> according to the House Report of the 1976 Copyright Act. The report states
> the following as an example of fair use:
>
> "... the making of a single copy or phonorecord by an individual as a free
> service for a blind person would properly be considered a fair use under
> section
> 107."
>
> For non lawyer readers, this does not mean that our fair use rights are
> limited to, or are as narrow as the language used in the illustration.  It
> instead
> means that at a minimum our rights are as broad as stated by the language.
> the purpose of the Report is to give as many illustrations of definite
fair
> use as they could conceive of when the statute was being debated and
> drafted.  Another critical point is that the House Report quoted above is
> from the
> mid 1970's before the statute was passed.  Since 1978 the fair use
> provisions have been read very broadly by the U.S. Supreme Court, most
> importantly for
> us in a case brought against Sony for producing video cassette recorders
> that copyright holders said could be used to copy their television shows
and
> movies.
>  In light of the very favorable case law on fair use, our rights as blind
> people to access printed materials are much stronger today than was true
in
> 1976,
> and as you can see from the text posted above from the house report, we
> could make copies even then.
> Legal Conclusion 2.
> The so called, Chafee Amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act, has absolutely
> nothing to do with blind people privately copying, or exchanging copies of
> books
> with one another in accessible electronic formats.  It does not say we can
> do it, it does not say we can not do it, and most importantly it does not
> dsay
> that we are limited in any way to getting our books from non profit
> organizations which are empowered by the amendment.  The Chafee Amendment,
> section
> 121 of the Copyright Act states in part:
>
> "... 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."
>
> This amendment applies only to "authorized entities," which are defined as
> government entities and private non profit organizations such as
Recordings
> for
> the Blind and BookShare, that make copyrighted materials available to the
> blind.  This amendment is important because it makes clear that such
> organizations
> can reproduce as many copies of a copyrighted work as needed, and
permission
> from the copyright holder is not necessary.  Prior to this amendment, the
> legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act, stated that these
> organizations needed permission and sometimes permission was not granted.
> At the risk of beating a dead horse to death yet again, The Chafee
amendment
> has nothing to do with our rights as private individuals to scan a
> copyrighted
> work and give the finished product to a blind friend.  Some contributors
on
> the earlier thread discussing this topic, seemed to be suggesting that
since
> the Chafee amendment provides a way for blind readers to obtain accessible
> materials, that making materials available outside the mandate of the
> statute
> had to be illegal.  Let me pose this hypothetical.  There are many laws on
> the books concerning restaurants and how they must operate.  These
> institutions
> are told by law how foods must be prepared, how long foods can be kept,
what
> the menus must say about the foods, and what types of containers can be
used
> when the foods are taken off premises.  Would it be reasonable to conclude
> that in light of the fact that the government has passed laws telling
> restaurants
> how to operate, that when I am hungry I must go to a restaurant to eat;
that
> I can no longer trade fruits and vegetables with my neighbor and make a
> salad
> at home in my own kitchen?
> I strongly believe that as blind people we must know our legal rights,
> because only then can we accurately evaluate where we stand, and determine
> if we
> even have the proverbial leg to stand on.  We are constantly confronted by
> rehab counselors, DSS offices, professors, publishers, landlords, taxi
> drivers,
> and so on, who are dead sure they know the law, and in my experience
almost
> never do.  They usually talk a good line, and they are relying on the fact
> that we will be powerless to find out the facts.  This can work to our
> advantage providing we do know the facts, because they will make mistakes
> based
> on their unfounded notions.
> My contracts professor told us a story.  When he first came to Chicago, he
> rented an apartment.  When he went to sign the lease, he leafed through it
> quickly,
> clearly not reading it, then turned to the last page and signed.  The
rental
> agent smugly and with a sneer, said, "I thought you said you were a lawyer
> and you didn't even read the lease."  He continued, "I would think you
would
> know better."  My prof simply smiled and stated, "I do know better.  I
> didn't
> need to read it, because I do not care what it says. Its unenforceable, so
> it turns out that it is you who should have known better."  The problem
was
> that the lease was in 8 point type, which made it unenforceable in
Illinois
> at the time.
> Another example.  While I was taking commercial paper, our professor told
us
> about a dispute he was having with a local bank.  He had ordered a box of
> 1000
> checks for his personal checking account, and they were lost during
> shipping.  He went to the bank to arrange to reorder the checks, and he
was
> told he
> had to stop payment on the checks and that would cost $25.  He told her he
> didn't lose them and he would certainly not pay $25 to cover the mistake
of
> the bank or the shipper.  Then she explained that they were required by
law
> to charge $25 for each of the 1000 checks on which they stopped payment.
> Fortunately
> he was an expert in banking law and was able to explain to the bank's
> manager that even though this might be the law with respect to a small
> number of
> checks, no court would ever rule that this was intended to be the outcome
> where an entire range of 1000 checks had been lost by a bank.  The amazing
> part
> was that a bank employee could as a matter of common sense think that this
> was even possible.  But to me, I find it equally astonishing that some can
> think
> it is a copyright violation, not covered by fair use, for a blind student
to
> be given a copy of a book in an accessible format by another blind reader,
> when that required book is readily and immediately available to all the
> sighted people in the class either for purchase, or free of charge from
the
> library.
> Ponder this question, which is answered by the Sony case.  Is it illegal
for
> me to use my VCR to record Desperate Housewives, or Monday Night Football?
>  If yes, why?  If no, then why not?  Also remember, that at the end of
> Monday Night Football, along with all other sports broadcast, the
announcers
> state
> something to the effect, that you can not copy it, rebroadcast it, think
> about it, give your opinion about it, tell your friends about it, dream
> about
> it, fantasize that you threw the winning touchdown, give accounts of the
> game, and so on, without the expressed prior written consent of the
> Commissioner
> of the National Football League, President Bush, and your mother.  With
all
> these copyright based admonitions, shouldn't we be afraid to record the
game
> on our VCR's because it might be illegal?
> I look forward to hearing everyone's comments.  I think we have a lot of
> brainpower and legal talent on this list, and I am confident that if we
can
> combine
> our efforts we can make a significant and lasting difference for blind
> people.  As lawyers we really do have the ability and opportunity to
change
> the
> world in many ways.  Non lawyers must seek change through writing letters
to
> business or government, and most such letters are ignored.  As lawyers, we
> can send a letter in the form of a civil complaint, and they will either
> show up in court to talk with us, or they will lose by default.  Based on
my
> reading,
> most of the social justice that has been achieved by disfavored groups in
> America, is a result of lawyers.  Bene-Brith and the NAACP Legal Defense
> Fund
> for example, made enormous contributions to civil rights for blacks, and I
> think we can do the same for those of us who are blind.
> For anyone who wishes to communicate with me off list, my email address
is:
> DennisGClark at sbcglobal.net
> All the best,
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rumpole" <rumpole at gwi.net>
> To: "Multiple recipients of NFBnet BlindLaw Mailing List"
> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 6:05 AM
> Subject: [blindlaw] Question
>
>
> Happy  Good Friday everyone:
>
> Back during the Holidays there was a spirited discussion on the list about
> copyright laws - as you may recall, this centered around the availability
of
> citation books for law students and the Black's Law Dictionary in a usable
> form to blind and V.I. students and attorneys.
> Does anyone here happen to have the Federal Statute citations that stated
it
> was an exception or exclusion to the copyright law for certain types of
> books to be copied for use by the blind?
>  I am embarrassed to admit that I have mistakenly deleted those references
> before I put them in a safe place.
> Any help in those citations would be very much appreciated.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > blindlaw mailing list
> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>