From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from rhombus.bright.net ([205.212.123.75]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 16SDxT-0004pJ-00 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:08:11 -0500 Received: from tward (woos-max1-cs-20.dial.bright.net [209.143.18.39]) by rhombus.bright.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id g0K9891E014552 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:08:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005401c1a192$10891140$0100a8c0@tward> From: "Thomas Ward" To: References: Subject: Re: Problems with pdf files. Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:08:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca Errors-To: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.7 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hmmmm.... Well, I guess if they want to regulate reading a document out loud they can add screen readers to the list, because that's exactly what they do. I agree. Stupid stuff like that will get the DMCA reopened, or possibly over turned. Hypathetically I'd like to know what they would do if a blind Windows user sent them a nice letter stating that he used a screen reader and Adobe Acrobat 5 to read the document. Then, ask them if they were going to procicute because he read it out loud with his computer. ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Shang To: Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Problems with pdf files. > On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Janina Sajka wrote: > > > Let's be clear about this. Whatever you read in any copyright statement is > > valid only if it falls within the law goveerning copyright. > > Definitely. I just think it's apauling that anyone thinks that they can > withhold such a basic right as reading aloud. > > > Silly statements such as the one below about reading aloud are exactly the > > kind of industry over-reaching that's going to get the DMCA reopened in > > Congress one of these days. > > Yeah, I've been reading about mutterings along these lines for the past few > weeks now. Bring it on! IMHO, the copyright situation, particularly in > the USA (which seems to be where it counts these days) is just crazy. Did > you know that if the 1998 amendment to the copyright act hadn't gone > through that Micky Mouse would have entered the public domain next year? > So it damned well should - they've had a long enough go at it. But no, > they need to tie it up for another 20 years or something. Grrrrrr! > > As an aside, an article in The Australian last Monday pointed out that > Australia's copyright laws are still life plus 50 years, instead of the > life plus 70 adopted in the USA. This means that, for example, all of > George Orwell's works are now in the public domain here in Australia, and > some are apparently on the web here. Of course, it's only legal for > Australians to access it. > > Geoff. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >