I think we need to remember why people are using scanners. It's because
the printed word is currently inaccessible to many people. I thought the
DDA was meant to correct such basic inequalities. Aren't books 'goods'?
Aren't publishers treating people with disabilities 'less favourably' if
they do not provide accessible versions of books, journals etc or at the
very least allow the individual to use access technology for reading
while they address this problem?
I think if you provide specialist scanning/reading equipment in a library
or central resource and access is reserved so only students who are
considered to be 'print impaired' are allowed access, then you should not
have to worry about any legal implications. If the student decides to
scan stuff onto disk and then make multiple copies then it's the student
who is liable, isn't it- just the same as a student who takes a book out
of the library and runs of 20 copies in a local print shop.
If the publisher objects, you should ask them why it was necessary for
the student to scan their materials to make them accessible. Why are they
not making their products accessible to disabled people? Even if the DDA
doesn't apply, isn't it a basic human right to have access to
information..?
The RNIB campaigned to get copyright laws changed to help ensure VI
students could access library books. It made sense for people not to
cloud the issue with the CLA so this immediate problem could be resolved.
the final guidelines are available as a non-accessible PDF file
http://www.cla.co.uk/copyrightvillage/vpguidelines.pdf
These guidelines are begrudging and patronising. Visually impaired
library users are told they must not "adapt, edit, alter, amend, or
distort the work" while non-VI users are simply told not to store or
distribute copies. People who are blind, partially sighted or otherwise
print impaired have a basic human right to access print information -
they should not need to seek grudging permission.
Ian F
> >
> > 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:
> >
|