Tanis, it is possible that Canadians have a different situation.
Possibly, conventions held in Canada are required to have interpreters and
captioners regardless of whether any participant has requested such as an
accommodation. The last time I attended a conference in Canada (two years
ago), this was
not the case but perhaps it is now. It also is very possible that Canada
has different intellectual property and copyright provisions.
Under US law, barriers are to be removed whenever possible - hence,
captioning, curbcuts, braille elevator buttons, and so on. Where it does
not seem
practicable to remove a barrier, reasonable accommodations are provided at
the request of individuals who need them. There is a specific issue with
providing texts which are the intellectual property of their originators
(as a presentation at a meeting is) or of their owners (as all copyrighted
material is). These cannot be reproduced without the permission of the
owner UNLESS they are being provided to an individual with a disability
who needs an alternate format. Any individual who, as a reasonable
accommodation, receives a text that is
the property of others is not permitted
to circulate the text or make other use of it, although any other
individual with a disability may also obtain it by receiving a similar
accommodation. This holds, under different laws, for computer files,
brailled material,
xeroxes, and the hard copy printed out during captioning. It is even the
case that professors must make their notes available under some
circumstances to PWDs, but once again under agreement that they will not
be circulated. These agreements are hard-won and should not be
jeopardised.
So the issue
is not whether it would be useful to have texts that can be sent to people
not at the conference. Of course it would. The issue is, is it legal. It
is legal just in case ASBH receives permission from all the panelists to
reproduce their remarks for general circulation. If that happens, I will
pay to have the session audiotaped, and, if anyone requests a captioner
(as I believe someone may do), the hard-copy can be distributed.
If people are sufficiently interested, I can ask the participants if they
will permit the publication of their remarks. If al agree, that will be
easy enough to do.
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Tanis M. Doe wrote:
> Ummmm, could be us Canadians have a diferent situation, but I beg to
> differ. (about access only being used for the disabled or in this case
> Deaf consumer). I feel a slight amount of authority on the issue because
> I am both Deaf and disabled and have had need of access in many cases. You
> know those electric doors at shopping malls that either respond to weight
> on the floor pads or have electric eyes detecting motion? Originally meant
> for shopping carts and women pushing strollers but now part of the common
> sense of most major shopping places to provide what is close to "universal
> access" in the sense no need to push a button.
> Deaf access has had some similar outgrowths- the second language
> community, at least in Canada use captioning to help learn English and to
> develop better vocabulary, people use captions when a family member is
> talking onthe phone and the volume of tv is distracting. Captioning of
> speeches is useful not only for Deaf people but for people who have
> auditory processing problems and who need visual access. In addition, most
> ( in my humble opinion) academic papers are nearly impossible to process
> in their entireities when spoken aloud so the hard copy electronic or
> printed allows a Deaf or otherwise interested person to read more than
> once, what was spoken, until they "get it". I agree that sign language
> interpreters should NOT be used for the entertainment of hearing people
> who think it LOOKS PRETTY ( at concerts or at meetings) And i think it is
> a waste of a very very scarce resource to provide interpreters at a public
> event just so the interpreter is on camera and its good PR- there are
> hundreds of demands for interpreters which go unmet because there are NOT
> ENOUGH GOOD interpreters to go around. HOWever, I do differ on the
> captioning front. I think courts have been transcribing their proceedings
> for legal record long before a deaf juror or witness asked for it. So,
> lets use the technology for everyone, lets make universal access truly
> universal and even if it means making a request of an organization which
> is NOT disability related, I think it makes sense to do so. I certainly
> have enjoyed, for three years, the ability to check out papers at the CSUN
> technology and persons with disabilities conference ON THE WEB without
> attending the rather expensive conference. This was not done for the
> "disabled people" but for everyone who needed access to the information
> and could not attend the event.
>
> I feel strongly that the Singer debate is worthy of dissemination to as
> broad an audience as possible- I think Johnathon was just suggesting one
> avenue that might not have been considered yet. Tanis
>
> Tanis is moving in August please stay tuned for new address and phone
> number. Visit http://members.xoom.com/doetanis1/newhome.html for some
> links. Pls send attachments to [log in to unmask] not to this email thanks.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|