I take the point about DDA not overriding Copyright law - although I'm
still not clear that that lets discrimination off the hook, legally much
less morally.
At the time the Guidelines and the Act were being developed, the RNIB
were ploughing their own furrow (which they considered pretty difficult
vis a vis frightened publishers) and were not inclusive of other reading
disabilities. I am pleased to say that they have got much better over
the last year. Carol Youngs (British Dyslexia Association Policy
Officer) and I (from the BDA Computer Committee) both sit on the
steering committee of the Right to Read Campaign, which is lead by the
RNIB. Recent RNIB documents and the campaign's Right to Read Charter are
now pretty inclusive (although the RNIB still need frequent reminders
<GR>), so I'm hopeful that such legal idiocies are less likely in
future.
But perhaps we do need to rely on the proposition that dyslexia
(Meares/Irlen at least) is covered because of the physical inability
to move and focus the eyes accurately and in synchrony. See Qinetic's
eye-tracking project at http://www.nature.com/nsu/020402/020402-7.html,
and Tintavision's recent work eg
http://www.tintavision.com/pdfs/sciapr01.pdf. If the inability to make
accurate saccades is not a physical disability, I'm not sure what is -
even if it is also neurological (like, say, CP) and microscopic.
Regards
Ian Litterick
iANSYST Ltd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gregory [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 24 October 2003 12:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DIS-FORUM] Scanners and copyright law
>
>
> Bernard is quite right. DDA/SENDA cannot override existing
> legislation.
> While publishers are resisting efforts to provide electronic
> versions, the
> DTI's Patent Office are not doing anything to help either.
> As I mentioned
> in an earlier message, these conflicts were pointed out in the Access
> Association's response to their consultation and could have
> been so easily
> avoided by substituting vision impairment for 'reading difficulty'.
> However, they decided to ignore this and, what surprises me even more,
> bodies such as the RNIB accepted it.
>
> John Gregory
> Access Officer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Doherty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 24 October 2003 12:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Scanners and copyright law
>
> Ian's outline of the paradoxical nature of
> the situation is
> so
> obviously true that any fair-minded reader
> must ask how such
> a
> situation was ever created and how can it be
> allowed to
> stand. How are
> the apparently competing demands of rights laws and
> disability
> legislation to be ordered? Unfortunately,
> this has already
> been
> decided: the wording of SENDA established
> that its terms do
> not replace
> existing legislation.
>
> The clear intention is that the DDA should
> not be used as a
> lever by
> judges or tribunals to make
> extra-parliamentary alterations
> to
> legislation in other areas where practice has
> been clearly
> established.
> It is an awkward situation, but it seems
> there will be no
> incentive for
> publishers and those they represent to change
> their position
> until they
> are returned to a sea of 17th-century-style
> pirac. They
> will be
> obliged to think of new ways to make money
> and ask for new
> legislation
> to protect whatever practices are eventually
> established in
> an era of
> electronic literacy (oh, I'm such a
> phrase-maker). At the
> moment, it
> seems there are very few levers or incentives
> currently
> available to
> persuade one side in the debate that it needs
> to change as a
> matter of
> urgency for the good of others.
>
> Regards, Bernard
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:29:13 +0100 Ian Litterick
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Physical impairments are pretty much on a
> par with VI
> according to the
> > PLS Guidelines -
> http://www.cla.co.uk/copyrightvillage/vpguidelines.pdf
> > "For the purposes of these Guidelines
> visually impaired
> people are taken
> > to include . . . those who are unable
> through physical
> disability to
> > hold or manipulate books or to focus or
> move their eyes or
> who are
> > otherwise physically unable to use
> available published
> formats."
> >
> > and according to the Copyright (Visually Impaired
> Persons) Act 2002
> >
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20020033.htm#6 - "(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. "
> >
> > But with dyslexia you are caught between the rock of
> omission from these
> > documents and the hard place of DDA/SENDA,
> which obliges
> you to make
> > reasonable adjustments for a dyslexic
> person the same as
> any other
> > disability.
> >
> > Personally I think that the law is such an
> ass making this
> distinction
> > in copyright where there is none in the disability
> legislation that you
> > have little option but to use your common
> sense and be
> prepared to join
> > most of us in this forum on the barricades.
> The USA is
> more sensible and
> > brackets both groups under Reading
> Impairment, and is
> increasingly
> > compelling publishers of educational texts to make
> electronic versions
> > available. Why should scanning be seen as such a
> privilege? It is a real
> > pain compared with having the text available in the
> electronic format
> > that you need in the first place.
> >
> > Moreover, the latest research suggests that
> Meares/Irlen
> syndrome, which
> > accounts for a lot of people with "dyslexic" reading
> difficulties, is
> > actually related to, even caused by a
> physical inability
> to move and
> > focus the eyes accurately and in synchrony.
> So perhaps
> even dyslexia is
> > covered, even though it wasn't intended to be.
> >
> > Either way, I wouldn't like to be the
> publisher or CPS who
> risked such a
> > prosecution of people with learning
> difficulties or a
> responsible
> > organisation that was helping them.
> >
> > But it would be nice if the law was clear and fair.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ian Litterick
> > www.dyslexic.com
> > www.iansyst.co.uk
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jane Tomlinson
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 23 October 2003 13:03
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: [DIS-FORUM] Scanners and copyright law
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Could anyone offer me some advice on the
> use of scanners
> in
> > > the library
> > > for disabled users. I know the recent copyright
> legislation allows
> > > visually impaired students to use a scanner in the
> library but what
> > > about other students such as dyslexic students and
> students with
> > > physical impairments that need to use a
> scanner with
> text read & write
> > > software. How are other Higher Education Libraries
> getting around the
> > > copyright restrictions? Can it be argued
> that the DDA
> part 4 states we
> > > need to make reasonable adjustments and
> therefore all
> > > disabled students
> > > should have access to a scanner.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help
> > > Jane
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jane Tomlinson
> > > Media Librarian / LLR Disability Rep
> > > London College of Fashion
> > > 20 John Princes Street
> > > London
> > > W1M 0BJ
> > > 02075147545
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ----------------------
> Bernard Doherty
> Student Adviser
> ACCESS Centre
> Anglia Polytechnic University
>
> Tel: 01223 363271 x2534
> Fax: 01223 417730
> Minicom: 01223 576155
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ______________
---------------------------Disclaimer---------------------------
Unless obviously public, this email is confidential to the intended recipient(s). If you received it in error please tell the sender and then delete it. We check emails from dyslexic.com and iansyst.co.uk, but you should virus check incoming emails. Emails do not always represent our official policy or a contract. Errors and omissions are excepted.
iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 1UN. T +44(0)1223 420101; Fax +44(0) 1223 42 66 44; [log in to unmask]
|