Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
It's not something that is "stated." It's what is evident from the existence of the law itself. (Speaking here of US law.)
In the US, if there were no statutory enactment of copyright, copyright would not exist. Good statement in Wikipedia:
So copyright holders in the US own ONLY what the legislature grants.
And there are other statutory enactments that specifically deal with disabilities:
Given our increasing concern with the treatment of disabled people in this country, it's pretty evident that it's entirely reasonable to expect copyright holders to address the needs of disabled people. Remember the objections that arose when Amazon wanted to get Kindles into universities, over the text-to-speech capabilities of the Kindle DX? That was premised on the idea that the Kindles weren't being made available to the blind when they lacked those capabilities.
|
IOW that's what you want it to mean. But, no. Things being available in movie theaters or only as live performances are not automatically required to be available for people who want to stay at home, no matter what the Supreme Court of wikipedia says.