RE: Trouble with listen-up

RE: Trouble with listen-up

[Sina Bahram]

Well, if it's easy enough to crack ... Then cracking it and distributing
binaries would be legal, I gather?

Take care,
Sina

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:04 AM
To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up

Sina Bahram writes:
> RFB&D protects their daisy books with a propriotary encryption algorithm
...
> Does RNIB do the same?


Yes. It is definitely the case.

However, it would not be hard to write a module to open the content, though
the terms of licensing would not allow publishing the source.

The reason for this encryption is to meet legal copyright restrictions on
the distribution of this content. It's the computer equivalent of making
audio cassette talking books use half speed and open reel track format,
rather than standard cassette speed and standard track format.

> 
> If so: that could explain why it reads the title and everything; 
> however, seg faults on the rest ...
> 
> Good luck with this problem: I'd be interested in getting a solution 
> to it, as I think it may lead to one, hopefully, for reading RFB&D 
> daisy formats without having to pay them for the software and/or 
> hardware, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Take care,
> Sina

Re: Trouble with listen-up

[Janina Sajka]

Sina Bahram writes:
> Well, if it's easy enough to crack ... Then cracking it and distributing
> binaries would be legal, I gather?

Are you joking? The illegality of breaking and entering a house doesn't
depend on the strength of the locks that protect it. In fact, it's still
"breaking and entering," even if there is no lock, as I understand
things--though perhaps some lawyer among us might clarify this principal
for us.

If redistribution is really illegal, than it's illegal regardless of
presence or absence of encryption.

> 
> Take care,
> Sina
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
> On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:04 AM
> To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
> Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up
> 
> Sina Bahram writes:
> > RFB&D protects their daisy books with a propriotary encryption algorithm
> ...
> > Does RNIB do the same?
> 
> 
> Yes. It is definitely the case.
> 
> However, it would not be hard to write a module to open the content, though
> the terms of licensing would not allow publishing the source.
> 
> The reason for this encryption is to meet legal copyright restrictions on
> the distribution of this content. It's the computer equivalent of making
> audio cassette talking books use half speed and open reel track format,
> rather than standard cassette speed and standard track format.
> 
> > 
> > If so: that could explain why it reads the title and everything; 
> > however, seg faults on the rest ...
> > 
> > Good luck with this problem: I'd be interested in getting a solution 
> > to it, as I think it may lead to one, hopefully, for reading RFB&D 
> > daisy formats without having to pay them for the software and/or 
> > hardware, which I find ridiculous.
> > 
> > Take care,
> > Sina
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka				Phone: +1.202.494.7040
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com

Chair, Accessibility Workgroup		Free Standards Group (FSG)
janina@freestandards.org		http://a11y.org

If Linux can't solve your computing problem, you need a different problem.

Trouble with Breaking and Entering

[John McCann]

Janina writes:

In fact, it's...[breaking and entering]...still "breaking and entering," 
even if there is no lock, as I understand things--though perhaps some lawyer 
among us might clarify this principal for us.

Correct; and on the civil side, you're looking at liability for trespassing 
as well.

Okay, enough cyber-lawyering for the day.

John

Re: Trouble with listen-up

[Sean McMahon]

I'd say get someone in iran, or one of those countries where intelectual
property isn't respected to crack/distribute it.  If breaking and entering is
legal where you are, it's legal.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up


> Sina Bahram writes:
> > Well, if it's easy enough to crack ... Then cracking it and distributing
> > binaries would be legal, I gather?
>
> Are you joking? The illegality of breaking and entering a house doesn't
> depend on the strength of the locks that protect it. In fact, it's still
> "breaking and entering," even if there is no lock, as I understand
> things--though perhaps some lawyer among us might clarify this principal
> for us.
>
> If redistribution is really illegal, than it's illegal regardless of
> presence or absence of encryption.
>
> >
> > Take care,
> > Sina
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
> > On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:04 AM
> > To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
> > Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up
> >
> > Sina Bahram writes:
> > > RFB&D protects their daisy books with a propriotary encryption algorithm
> > ...
> > > Does RNIB do the same?
> >
> >
> > Yes. It is definitely the case.
> >
> > However, it would not be hard to write a module to open the content, though
> > the terms of licensing would not allow publishing the source.
> >
> > The reason for this encryption is to meet legal copyright restrictions on
> > the distribution of this content. It's the computer equivalent of making
> > audio cassette talking books use half speed and open reel track format,
> > rather than standard cassette speed and standard track format.
> >
> > >
> > > If so: that could explain why it reads the title and everything;
> > > however, seg faults on the rest ...
> > >
> > > Good luck with this problem: I'd be interested in getting a solution
> > > to it, as I think it may lead to one, hopefully, for reading RFB&D
> > > daisy formats without having to pay them for the software and/or
> > > hardware, which I find ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Sina
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> -- 
>
> Janina Sajka Phone: +1.202.494.7040
> Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com
>
> Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG)
> janina@freestandards.org http://a11y.org
>
> If Linux can't solve your computing problem, you need a different problem.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

RE: Trouble with listen-up

[Sina Bahram]

Hi Janina,

I forgot to separate out those sentences ... Not been getting a ton of sleep
lately, sorry.

Let me rephrase

Since it's easy enough to crack, if someone does decide to do so, then said
person distributes binaries, does that violate any laws. I'm thinking, in
particular, of the mp3 case with lame, I think it was? ... And how binaries
were legal to distribute but the source wasn't.

Take care,
Sina

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:56 AM
To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up

Sina Bahram writes:
> Well, if it's easy enough to crack ... Then cracking it and 
> distributing binaries would be legal, I gather?

Are you joking? The illegality of breaking and entering a house doesn't
depend on the strength of the locks that protect it. In fact, it's still
"breaking and entering," even if there is no lock, as I understand
things--though perhaps some lawyer among us might clarify this principal for
us.

If redistribution is really illegal, than it's illegal regardless of
presence or absence of encryption.

> 
> Take care,
> Sina
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca 
> [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
> On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:04 AM
> To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
> Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up
> 
> Sina Bahram writes:
> > RFB&D protects their daisy books with a propriotary encryption 
> > algorithm
> ...
> > Does RNIB do the same?
> 
> 
> Yes. It is definitely the case.
> 
> However, it would not be hard to write a module to open the content, 
> though the terms of licensing would not allow publishing the source.
> 
> The reason for this encryption is to meet legal copyright restrictions 
> on the distribution of this content. It's the computer equivalent of 
> making audio cassette talking books use half speed and open reel track 
> format, rather than standard cassette speed and standard track format.
> 
> > 
> > If so: that could explain why it reads the title and everything; 
> > however, seg faults on the rest ...
> > 
> > Good luck with this problem: I'd be interested in getting a solution 
> > to it, as I think it may lead to one, hopefully, for reading RFB&D 
> > daisy formats without having to pay them for the software and/or 
> > hardware, which I find ridiculous.
> > 
> > Take care,
> > Sina

RE: Trouble with listen-up

[Sina Bahram]

*chuckling* wow ... It's amazing what you guys can do with one misplaced
sentence ... Quite interesting actually from a sociological point of view
and how assumptions can snowball into miscommunicated conjecture and then
into quote, known facts, unquote.

Take care,
Sina

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Sean McMahon
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:21 PM
To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up

I'd say get someone in iran, or one of those countries where intelectual
property isn't respected to crack/distribute it.  If breaking and entering
is legal where you are, it's legal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up


> Sina Bahram writes:
> > Well, if it's easy enough to crack ... Then cracking it and distributing
> > binaries would be legal, I gather?
>
> Are you joking? The illegality of breaking and entering a house doesn't
> depend on the strength of the locks that protect it. In fact, it's still
> "breaking and entering," even if there is no lock, as I understand
> things--though perhaps some lawyer among us might clarify this principal
> for us.
>
> If redistribution is really illegal, than it's illegal regardless of
> presence or absence of encryption.
>
> >
> > Take care,
> > Sina

Re: Trouble with listen-up

[Janina Sajka]

Hi, Sina:

Sina Bahram writes:
> Hi Janina,
> 
> I forgot to separate out those sentences ... Not been getting a ton of sleep
> lately, sorry.


OK. I understand that. Email can certainly be tough that way--without
the voice inflection, etc.

> 
> Let me rephrase
> 
> Since it's easy enough to crack, if someone does decide to do so, then said
> person distributes binaries, does that violate any laws.


The question is "distribute to who?" In the U.S. at least, the "to who"
part makes all the difference. In other words, the answer might be
"yes," and it might be "no," depending on who the recipient of
distribution is.

Now, I must say again that I'm not a lawyer. However, I have been an
active advocate on this issue during my years with AFB. The recent
Library of Congress decision regarding the DMCA was my advocacy, and it
directly addresses this issue. Let me lay out the essential facts for
you:

In 1976 the U.S. Congress amended U.S. Copyright law. As is customary
various committees of Congress wrote reports during that process. Those
reports help the courts determine exactly what Congress was thinking.
That's important because a House of Representatives committee wrote that
nothing in the new copyright law could be construed to make it illegal
to make a work accessible to a blind person, and that a blind person
could do for themselves, or someone else could do for them the act of
making a book accessible. In 1976 the language was "phonograph
recording," but it's the principle that's important in law, not the
specific medium referred to.

The U.S. Supreme Court relied on exactly this report language in the
famous beta max case in the 1980's. Basically, the movie industry had
tried to make VCR taping of TV shows illegal. The Supreme Court told
them to go fly a kite, and the Court's reasoning relied, in part, on the
House report and the specific paragraph about blind people's
accessibility. Maybe we should remind Blockbuster the next time we need
a project funded--but I diagress.

Now, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) went further than
any copyright law before. It made the very act of unencrypting something
without permission illegal, and it made the tool you might use to
decrypt illegal. Very nasty. Fortunately, the DMCA requires a review
every three years to make sure that the new rules aren't preventing
people from having legitimate access. During the review period in 2003
AFB argued that there were ebook titles being produced that prevented
blind people's access just because they were encrypted in ways we
weren't being allowed to unlock. One example we presented was a
Microsoft Reader edition of a best seller from the Fifteenth Century. We
presented a screen shot of the message about how you couldn't read this
book with speech, and we pointed out that you actually had to pay money
for this book to even find out whether you would, or would not, be able
to read it with speech.

Therefore, we received a ruling from the Librarian of Congress that
exempts, for three years, blind people from the strictures against
cracking titles--but only if they're not available in another format.

So, is it legal? Possibly? If you crack something for yourself, or for
some blind person that isn't available in accessible format, it's legal.

Can you then distribute this to anyone and everyone? Absolutely not. Can
you generally make it available in a catalog? Only if you're an
nationally recognized organization in business of making such things
generally available. This last point refers to a different piece of
copyright law called the Chafee Amendment and is the law that NLS and
RFBD use to get books out faster. They used to have to ask permission
for every book they produced. Since Chafee they don't need to ask.

Here are some links:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201
http://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/factsheets/copyright.html

RE: Trouble with listen-up

[Sina Bahram]

Good info, thank you

Take care,
Sina 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
Subject: Re: Trouble with listen-up

Hi, Sina:

Sina Bahram writes:
> Hi Janina,
> 
> I forgot to separate out those sentences ... Not been getting a ton of 
> sleep lately, sorry.


OK. I understand that. Email can certainly be tough that way--without the
voice inflection, etc.

> 
> Let me rephrase
> 
> Since it's easy enough to crack, if someone does decide to do so, then 
> said person distributes binaries, does that violate any laws.


The question is "distribute to who?" In the U.S. at least, the "to who"
part makes all the difference. In other words, the answer might be "yes,"
and it might be "no," depending on who the recipient of distribution is.

Now, I must say again that I'm not a lawyer. However, I have been an active
advocate on this issue during my years with AFB. The recent Library of
Congress decision regarding the DMCA was my advocacy, and it directly
addresses this issue. Let me lay out the essential facts for
you:

In 1976 the U.S. Congress amended U.S. Copyright law. As is customary
various committees of Congress wrote reports during that process. Those
reports help the courts determine exactly what Congress was thinking.
That's important because a House of Representatives committee wrote that
nothing in the new copyright law could be construed to make it illegal to
make a work accessible to a blind person, and that a blind person could do
for themselves, or someone else could do for them the act of making a book
accessible. In 1976 the language was "phonograph recording," but it's the
principle that's important in law, not the specific medium referred to.

The U.S. Supreme Court relied on exactly this report language in the famous
beta max case in the 1980's. Basically, the movie industry had tried to make
VCR taping of TV shows illegal. The Supreme Court told them to go fly a
kite, and the Court's reasoning relied, in part, on the House report and the
specific paragraph about blind people's accessibility. Maybe we should
remind Blockbuster the next time we need a project funded--but I diagress.

Now, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) went further than any
copyright law before. It made the very act of unencrypting something without
permission illegal, and it made the tool you might use to decrypt illegal.
Very nasty. Fortunately, the DMCA requires a review every three years to
make sure that the new rules aren't preventing people from having legitimate
access. During the review period in 2003 AFB argued that there were ebook
titles being produced that prevented blind people's access just because they
were encrypted in ways we weren't being allowed to unlock. One example we
presented was a Microsoft Reader edition of a best seller from the Fifteenth
Century. We presented a screen shot of the message about how you couldn't
read this book with speech, and we pointed out that you actually had to pay
money for this book to even find out whether you would, or would not, be
able to read it with speech.

Therefore, we received a ruling from the Librarian of Congress that exempts,
for three years, blind people from the strictures against cracking
titles--but only if they're not available in another format.

So, is it legal? Possibly? If you crack something for yourself, or for some
blind person that isn't available in accessible format, it's legal.

Can you then distribute this to anyone and everyone? Absolutely not. Can you
generally make it available in a catalog? Only if you're an nationally
recognized organization in business of making such things generally
available. This last point refers to a different piece of copyright law
called the Chafee Amendment and is the law that NLS and RFBD use to get
books out faster. They used to have to ask permission for every book they
produced. Since Chafee they don't need to ask.

Here are some links:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201
http://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/factsheets/copyright.html

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup