 |
 |
I was always under the impression that you can copy (and therefor scan) a book as long as you do not copy all of it. Your problem might be solved by just scanning the chapters needed by the student. However, I'm not certain if this is just common practice or if there are any laws or policies to back this up. It certainly is the practice we follow at Dewsbury College for our disabled students. Elvira Haeussler Dewsbury College -----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 > > > > > > ---------------------------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] ---------------------- Bernard Doherty Student Adviser ACCESS Centre Anglia Polytechnic University Tel: 01223 363271 x2534 Fax: 01223 417730 Minicom: 01223 576155 [log in to unmask]