Judith

I am again forwarding your comments to DIS-FORUM.

I take your point that the directive only permits member States to take
action, but does not compel them, and that the clause I quote is part of
the recitals not the directive. And I also take your point that any
amendment is likely to mean failure of the bill for want of further time
in the Commons.

I'm sure that you are right that the RNIB would be upset to lose the
Bill. Politically it would be sad for the dyslexia and VI worlds to fall
out. We need to cooperate on Reading Impairment issues now that the DDA
gives a helpful context: for example we need web accessibility
guidelines which cover both sets of needs rather than separate documents
which the poor reader has to try to synthesise. We should be cooperating
on copyright exceptions. We should both be working for the availability
of digital formats: it is ridiculous that we should be fighting for the
right for reading impaired people laboriously to manipulate printed
texts into an accessible format when electronic distribution would be a
hundred times easier and more satisfactory.

But if we are not going to attempt to jeopardise the bill, it is all the
more important to lobby the government to take early action to correct
the discrimination in another, fuller bill, covering electronic
distribution as well as access to the printed version. Otherwise the
anomaly will go on for a long time and we shall, I'm afraid, have no
option but to continue to aid and abet copyright infringement.

Regards
Ian Litterick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judith Sullivan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 July 2002 14:31
> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Essential texts - copyright. Your students
> needyouremails!
>
>
> Ian
>
> The Directive itself in Article 5.3(b) clearly gives member
> States the option of providing exceptions for the benefit of
> people with a disability but does not require this to be
> done.  The recitals are not legally binding so there is no
> obligation to do anything by the date of 22 December.
>
> I doubt that the RNIB would have the same view as you on loss
> of the Bill, but you would have to ask them.  The second
> exception in the Bill goes well beyond the Joint Industry
> Guidelines so loss of this would certainly put the clock back
> for visually impaired people.
>
> As to the chances of further legislation, it was clear that
> the Opposition only supported the current Bill because they
> could see that the views of copyright owners were being
> properly considered and taken into account where appropriate.
>  Without even having consulted copyright owners on a broader
> exception, legislation doing that could well get a very rough
> ride and fail for that reason alone.
>
> Judith
>
> Judith Sullivan
> Copyright Directorate
> The Patent Office
> Department of Trade and Industry
> Harmsworth House
> 13-15 Bouverie Street
> London EC4Y 8DP
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7596 6502 (GTN 3555 6502)
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7596 6526/7
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> >>> "Ian Litterick" <[log in to unmask]> 30.07.2002 14:05:38 >>>
> Judith
>
> Thanks for your clarification, which is very helpful. I will forward
> this to disforum, with this message, as you have to be a
> member to post
> messages.
>
> However, I have some difficulty in reconciling what you say with the
> European Copyright Directive, to which the Bill is,
> presumably, partly a
> response, even if coincidental. (directive is at
> http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!pr
> od!CELEXnu
> mdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32001L0029&model=guichett). The directive, you will
> recall, says:
>
> "(43) It is in any case important for the Member States to adopt all
> necessary measures to facilitate access to works by persons suffering
> from a disability which constitutes an obstacle to the use of
> the works
> themselves, and to pay particular attention to accessible formats."
>
> And:
> "1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
> administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
> Directive before
> 22 December 2002."
>
> I'm not clear how that time scale can be met, unless it is
> done by means
> of an amendment to the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill. I
> would suggest that dealing with VI on its own does not meet
> the need for
> what must clearly be non-discriminatory legislation. And I would fear
> that, having had one Bill on the subject, there would be little chance
> of another one succeeding for quite a long time.
>
> Indeed, given that the guidelines already cover VI effectively, one
> could argue that it would be better for the bill to fail as that would
> motivate everyone concerned to press quickly on with a more
> comprehensive bill. The RNIB deserve credit and thanks for
> helping bring
> the Bill so far. A temporary failure would be frustrating, but I don't
> think that any harm would be done in the meanwhile to people with VI.
>
> Do you have any comments on time scales?
>
> Regards
> Ian Litterick
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Judith Sullivan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 30 July 2002 12:02
> > To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> > Cc: [log in to unmask];
> > [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: Essential texts - copyright. Your students need
> > youremails!
> >
> >
> > Dear All
> >
> > I have read your exchanges on this topic with interest, but,
> > as the Government official who has led on the Copyright
> > (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill, think it might be helpful
> > if I comment at this stage.
> >
> > The first point that I would make is that the Bill is not
> > intended to solve the problems of all people who cannot read
> > books as they are published.  The Bill is sponsored by the
> > RNIB, which is why it is aimed at visually impaired people,
> > and it is only during its Parliamentary progress that it has
> > picked up Government support, ie the Bill is not one that had
> > Government support at the time it was first tabled in July 2001.
> >
> > We are aware of similar concerns regarding people with
> > dyslexia or a mental handicap and earlier this year met
> > representatives of the British Dyslexia Association (BDA) and
> > MENCAP to discuss how to take these forward.  We explained,
> > though, that the Bill is best not viewed as a vehicle for
> > delivering anything, for a number of reasons:
> >
> > - the Government does not yet have enough information about
> > the needs of all other print disabled people in order to make
> > a decision at this point in time about what, if any,
> > copyright exception might be appropriate for those people who
> > do not fall within the scope of the Bill.  We have asked both
> > the BDA and MENCAP to provide us with some more information
> > by the autumn, but cannot make a decision about what the way
> > forward should be until we have more information;
> >
> > - there has as yet been no public consultation on any
> > exception other than one for visually impaired people and,
> > were we to decide to take anything forward, this would be
> > essential before any final decisions could be made.  (We
> > consulted on a copyright exception for the benefit of
> > visually impaired in the first half of 2001 after RNIB
> > lobbying for action from as long ago as 1999 and protracted
> > discussions with them prior to the consultation, and this is
> > why we were able to give Government support to the Bill in
> > the end, ie we already had all the information, views from
> > all affected interests etc in order to be able to make a
> > decision about what is fair and balanced between the needs of
> > visually impaired people and the legitimate interests of
> > copyright owners);
> >
> > - at this point in time, therefore, the Government would find
> > it very difficult to support an extension of the Bill to
> > other disabled people as we do not have enough information to
> > know what is balanced and fair and copyright owners have had
> > no opportunity at all to give their points of view;
> >
> > - any amendment to the Bill would also, almost certainly,
> > mean loss of the Bill entirely and thus there would be no
> > benefit to anyone.  If the Bill is amended in the Lords, it
> > would need to return to the Commons for approval there as
> > amended and there are no days left in this Session for
> > considering private member's Bills in the Commons; and
> >
> > - the last reason is a technical one.  The scope of the Bill
> > is fixed by the long and short titles that were tabled last
> > July.  It is quite surprising that the House authorities
> > allowed a Bill to go forward with a 'visually impaired
> > person' defined to include some people with physical
> > disabilities.  It is unlikely that an even wider definition
> > would be within the scope of the Bill and so any amendment in
> > this respect might fail to be accepted for purely technical reasons.
> >
> > In taking forward the concerns of other disabled people, we
> > want to identify all the perceived needs, beyond those that
> > we are currently aware of in the area of dyslexia and mental
> > handicap, and would welcome any help in this respect.
> >
> > The Joint Industry Guidelines are not being replaced by this
> > Bill.  It is certainly true that in some respects the
> > Guidelines are more generous than the Bill as legislation
> > must necessarily be clearly drawn and the legislation has
> > also had to comply with legal requirements in European
> > legislation on copyright exceptions.  Thus, if anyone can
> > justifiably act under the Guidelines but not the Bill, this
> > will still be possible.  As to what does fall within the
> > scope of the Guidelines, then this is something that would
> > have to be taken up with the industry groups that agreed them
> > in case of doubt.
> >
> > More generally, we have throughout the process of delivering
> > a copyright exception for visually impaired people encouraged
> > the RNIB and other organisations representing visually
> > impaired people to talk to industry interests to increase
> > understanding and identify practical solutions where
> > possible.  I am sure that the RNIB would agree with me that
> > legislation alone rarely provides all the solutions and we
> > continue to encourage this sort of dialogue even in the areas
> > of disability that are addressed by the Bill.
> >
> > I hope this is helpful.  Obviously it is not for me to decide
> > how you lobby and progress your case, but I just thought it
> > might be helpful if I set out our current position on some matters.
> >
> > Judith Sullivan
> > Copyright Directorate
> > The Patent Office
> > Department of Trade and Industry
> > Harmsworth House
> > 13-15 Bouverie Street
> > London EC4Y 8DP
> > Tel: +44 (0)20 7596 6502 (GTN 3555 6502)
> > Fax: +44 (0)20 7596 6526/7
> > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> "Ian Litterick" <[log in to unmask]> 29.07.2002 17:24:42 >>>
> > Dis-forum members
> >
> > If you think that your dyslexic students should be able
> > legally to scan
> > texts and use text to speech without having to get copyright
> > permission
> > each time, could you please at least read the last couple
> of paras of
> > this boring email? Thanks. Ian Litterick
> >
> > Ian (Francis)
> > That's the crux. Can we interpret the definition to cover
> people with
> > dyslexia?
> >
> > >From the guidelines that you quote I had been relying on the
> > "otherwise
> > physically unable to use available
> > published formats", on the basis that there is a biological,
> > neurological, chemical cause which seems to come within physical as
> > defined by Websters at least. (See below for definition from
> > dictionary.com).
> >
> > However, in the new bill (which should supersede the guidelines, and
> > whose definition clause is below)) the clause has been
> > replaced by "who
> > is unable, through physical disability, to focus or move his
> > eyes to the
> > extent that would normally be acceptable for reading." This
> > seems to me
> > much more restrictive. It might conceivably cover
> Meares-Irlen, but I
> > don't see how it could stretch to decoding difficuties.
> > Dyslexia has not
> > traditionally been regarded as a physical disability although where
> > physical/mental/learning start and end, I would hate to judge, and I
> > guess the cerebellum is a physical part of the body.
> >
> > The corrective lenses clause that you quote has also been amended.
> > Again, it could conceivably cover Meares-Irlen, but I doubt it could
> > cover decoding.
> >
> > It seems to me clear that if the bill is to meet its
> obligations under
> > the DDA (and in the process remove from us the stigma of
> > criminality :)
> > ) it really needs amending. It would save us a lot of logic
> > chopping as
> > we attempt to make the law fit what we are going to encourage our
> > students to do anyway. I guess there is still time as it is
> now in the
> > Lords, aiming at royal assent in October. Does anybody know
> > any friendly
> > Lords?
> >
> > As I understand it, the BDA were told that there was nothing
> > that could
> > be done because you couldn't change the Title of the bill.
> But that's
> > manifestly rubbish as there is no way that "being unable to hold or
> > manipulate a book" can be described as visual impairment.
> So I can see
> > no reason for not adding a definition that covers the
> > relevant dyslexic
> > difficulties that make some people go to the enormous labour of
> > scanning, OCRing and listening to their texts when people
> without the
> > difficulty can so much more conveniently read them normally.
> >
> > I have been copying parts of this correspondence to the
> following who
> > need to know that this is an issue:
> >
> > Rachel Squire MP who's sponsoring the bill --
> > [log in to unmask];
> > [log in to unmask] of the Patent Office who I
> > understand are
> > responsible for drafting the bill;
> > Steve Alexander, Chief Executive of the BDA,
> > [log in to unmask] and Carol Youngs, Policy Director,
> > [log in to unmask] who had one go at the issue
> when they
> > were both quite new to the BDA.;
> >
> > I should also have included:
> > Melanie Johnson MP the Parliamentary Secretary for Consumer Affairs
> > responsible for Copyright issues: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > At the moment I suspect that the governmental folk are
> unaware of the
> > work that has recently shown the biological bases of dyslexia
> > and think
> > that dyslexia is dubious compared with VI. It would very
> much help if
> > they could see that somebody cared about the
> scanning/copyright issue
> > apart from me. . .
> >
> > Could dis-forum members who agree bang off a quick email or
> > five if only
> > to say something like:
> > "I support my dyslexic students in using scanners, OCR and Text to
> > Speech and believe that the exception to copyright in the Copyright
> > (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill must be extended to cover
> dyslexia."
> > and saying who you are? And maybe copying it to me?
> >
> > (Declaration of interest. We sell a lot of kit for this
> > purpose. But we
> > do so already, and I don't think that many students are being
> > denied OCR
> > kit because of copyright fears. So I don't expect an
> amendment to make
> > my fortune. But it would make me feel better.)
> >
> > Thanks very much
> >
> > Ian Litterick
> > (MD, iANSYST Ltd, www.dyslexic.com)
> >
> >
> > >From the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill
> > (9) Visually impaired person means a person
> > (a) who is blind;
> > (b) who  has  an  impairment  of  visual  function  which
> cannot  be
> > improved, by the use of corrective lenses, to a level that would
> > normally be acceptable for reading without a special level or
> > kind of light;
> > (c) who  is  unable,  through  physical  disability,  to  hold  or
> > manipulate a book; or
> > (d) who is unable, through physical disability, to focus or move his
> > eyes  to  the  extent  that  would  normally  be  acceptable  for
> > reading.
> >
> > \Phys"ic*al\, a. 1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including
> > all created
> > existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also, of
> > or relating
> > to natural or material things, or to the bodily structure, as
> > opposed to
> > things mental, moral, spiritual, or imaginary; material;
> natural; as,
> > armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; the
> body is the
> > physical part of man.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support
> > > staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Francis
> > > Sent: 29 July 2002 14:17
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Essential texts
> > >
> > >
> > > Although I can see a need for a book allowance if it
> > becomes more cost
> > > effective than ending up photocopying loads of separate
> > sections of a
> > > book, the issue regarding copyright needs to be addressed.
> > > The Copyright
> > > Licensing Agency has provided guidance on this matter on
> > > their website.
> > > Unfortunately for some screenreader users, this is a PDF file so -
> > > ironically - might be inaccessible. Refer to
> > > http://www.cla.co.uk/copyrightvillage/vpguidelines.pdf
> > > for full details.
> > >
> > > The definition of 'visually impaired' is quite wide, and
> > includes the
> > > following 'blind and partially sighted ... those who's
> > sight cannot be
> > > improved through the use of corrective lenses ... those
> who through
> > > physical disability are unable to hold or manipulate books or
> > > to focus or
> > > move their eyes or are otherwise physically unable to use
> available
> > > published formats'.
> > >
> > > I wonder if this could reasonably include people who's
> 'disability'
> > > related to visual processing issues (e.g. dyslexia) as these
> > > 'cannot be
> > > improved through use of corrective lenses' (though maybe
> > filters?). I
> > > think it'd probably help if a psychologist made a
> statement to this
> > > effect in effect in his/her report? Or maybe an ACCESS
> Centre report
> > > could make such a statement, especially for a student who has
> > > a physical
> > > disability.
> > >
> > > Ian Francis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2002 at 12:02, Unit Info wrote:
> > >
> > > > To get back to the original issue behind this otherwise
> > > useful debate on
> > > > copyright definitions....
> > > >
> > > > If LEA's were willing to provide an allowance for Essential
> > > Texts, along
> > > > the lines I proposed previously (see below), then
> copyright is not
> > > > infringed, and the dyslexic student has the whole text
> at his/her
> > > > fingertips instead of photocopying "one chapter"
> > > >
> > > > Catherine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I think the principle behind 2-24hrs loan is not because a
> > > student needs
> > > > >it for only that amount of time but because there are
> > likely >to be
> > > > >dozens of students wanting it for the same few weeks.  In
> > > that way, it
> > > > >isn't hogged by one or two individuals but every >student
> > > gets it for a
> > > > >short time and can then come back a few days later and
> > > borrow it again
> > > > >for the next session of reading and >note-taking.  In
> contrast, a
> > > > >dyslexic student cannot absorb a similar amount of
> > > information in one
> > > > >sitting, and probably needs to >read over and over again,
> > > highlight text,
> > > > >mark sections, needs more breaks, handles shorter reading
> > > sessions etc
> > > > >and so can never >make proper use of the library facility.
> > >  Consequently
> > > > >they are not able to work on an equal footing with their
> > > non-disabled
> > > > >peers. CG
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>How much can a student without any disability be expected
> > > to read and
> > > > >>absorb in 2 hours? or even 24 with lectures to attend? It
> > > would seem
> > > > >>that photocopying/scanning etc would be more appropriate
> > > and that the
> > > > >>amount of text involved would fall within the legal limit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >There are very strict limits on photocopying (except for
> > > the visually
> > > > >impaired) usually no more than one chapter of a book or
> > > one article of a
> > > > >journal. The same applies to scanning if you scan a
> > > photocopy you are
> > > > >supposed to destroy the photocopy afterwards. You are also
> > > not allowed to
> > > > >copy one chapter one day and another day!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Quote from DfES, earlier this year, on matter of Book
> > > Allowances for
> > > > >dyslexic students:
> > > > >
> > > > >"...It is necessary to demonstrate that the student's
> disability
> > > > >necessitates additional expenditure on course books. ...
> >  Dyslexic
> > > > >students are unable to make equal use of their
> > > institution's library
> > > > >facilities when books are only available on short-term
> > loan for the
> > > > >reasons cited by CG (see below)... In such cases we agree
> > > that a payment
> > > > >could be made from the DSA to purchase these books...
> > > > >
> > > > >CG's comments: <Most dyslexic students take much longer
> > > than the average
> > > > >to absorb information from texts and find it necessary >to
> > > buy books from
> > > > >which they will work at their own speed..> and <...because
> > > they need to
> > > > >mark and refer at length to the contents.  >The majority
> > > of non-disabled
> > > > >students do not buy books because they can use the library
> > > effectively.
> > > > >The purpose of a book >allowance therefore is to make them
> > > on an equal
> > > > >par with other students...>  and <With the newer degree
> > > structure, a
> > > > >module only >lasts 10 weeks and then the subject is
> > > generally not studied
> > > > >again, so that the concept of a "text" book is perhaps somewhat
> > > > >>outdated. Essential texts are intended more as something
> > > to refer to
> > > > >briefly for one course, and then move on to a new module
> > > with >new texts
> > > > >- hence the reason why these books are placed on short
> > > loan for students
> > > > >to refer to during the short period of the >particular course>
> > > > >
> > > > >It is my understanding that the word "Essential" in
> > > relation to texts,
> > > > >means essential reading not essential purchase, hence the
> > > >concept of
> > > > >books on short loan (ie sometimes only 2hours, more often
> > > 24hours), so
> > > > >that they are made available to as wide an >audience
> as possible.
> > > > CG
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Please note: I work part-time - Monday, Tuesday and Thursday
> > > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Catherine Griffiths
> > > > Student Administrator
> > > >
> > > > Dyslexia Unit
> > > > University of Wales, Bangor
> > > > Bryn Deiniol
> > > > Penrallt
> > > > Bangor
> > > > Gwynedd
> > > > LL57 2DG
> > > >
> > > > tel : 01248 383620
> > > > fax : 01248 383614
> > > > email : [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >   iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, Cambridge, CB4 1UN
> >           (UK) 01223 420101, www.dyslexic.com
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>   iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, Cambridge, CB4 1UN
>           (UK) 01223 420101, www.dyslexic.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------
  iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, Cambridge, CB4 1UN
          (UK) 01223 420101, www.dyslexic.com
--------------------------------------------------------