New Kindle Audio Feature Causes a Stir

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, please read this thread properly from the start before you comment on it. Jon, whose post I was replying to, is of the opinion that the DMCA's exemption clause applies to everybody, regardless of whether or not they are disabled. That has not been tested in court.

This is what Jon said:

So how come DRM is allowed to take away the read-aloud feature of eBooks? Doesn't that mean that blind people cannot partake in most eBooks?

I know how to read, thanks.

[HarryT]

Jon is well-known here to be an advocate of the fact that it's legal for everyone to remove DRM from eBooks due to the DMCA exemption. He'll be happy to tell you so himself, so you certainly don't need to take my word for it.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, please read this thread properly from the start before you comment on it. Jon, whose post I was replying to, is of the opinion that the DMCA's exemption clause applies to everybody, regardless of whether or not they are disabled. That has not been tested in court.

It will never be tested in court. The exceptions does not state that only a certain class may remove DRM, nor does it say that you may only remove DRM for a particular reason. All it says is that due to a technical constraint caused by DRM, the DRM can be removed.

[HarryT]

ie, you (and Jon) are of the opinion that the exemption applies to everyone. Yes, that's what I said .

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ie, you (and Jon) are of the opinion that the exemption applies to everyone. Yes, that's what I said .

Of course, if interpreted this way then the law basically says,

"Oh and by the way, you don't have to follow this law."

But, I very much doubt that is the case. I have read it and it doesn't read that way at all. Nor do I believe that was the intent. The intent was to make and exception for a person that fit the class and needed the exception.

Of course, that is pretty crude to. Because if the disabled person doesn't have the ability to remove the DRM. And no one else that does have the ability fall under the exception... then how is this exception to be used.

It's just a stupidly written bad law.

BOb

[GeoffC]

erm ... why bring in the argument that the disabled person may not have the 'ability' to remove the DRM.....

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

erm ... why bring in the argument that the disabled person may not have the 'ability' to remove the DRM.....

It's not an argument, I am just showing the circular login problem that this disabled "exception" provokes.

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

But, I very much doubt that is the case. I have read it and it doesn't read that way at all. Nor do I believe that was the intent. The intent was to make and exception for a person that fit the class and needed the exception.

That's my view too, Bob, but none of us here are lawyers and unless and until the thing is actually tested in a court case, all that any of us can offer are personal opinions.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Jon is well-known here to be an advocate of the fact that it's legal for everyone to remove DRM from eBooks due to the DMCA exemption. He'll be happy to tell you so himself, so you certainly don't need to take my word for it.

Maybe. But he wasn't stating that in this conversation. You're the one that pushed it down that path.