You are on page 1of 3

The following memos were sent to Scott Turow who is also an Ex Officio Member of the Council, The 

Authors Guild 

To: Scott Turow, via scott at scott turow dot com 

(Memo #1) Hello Mr. Turow --

I submitted the following which ran in the Blogs column in The New York Times:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/will-amazon-open-the-kindle-to-
developers/?ref=technology&apage=2#comments

Post # 42. September 27, 2009

I am US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber.

An interesting corollary to the debate on the use of the Kindle for persons who are blind or otherwise print disabled
is that the DAISY digital audio format DOES NOT meet the definition of ‘Specialized Format’ under the Section
121 (Chafee Amendment) copyright exemptions. The head of the DAISY consortium itself in written testimony to
the US Copyright Office changed the definition of ‘Specialized Format’ from ‘exclusively’ to ‘effectively’. The
President of The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) said in similar testimony to the US Copyright Office:

(Quote) One (problem) of course, is the definition of a text in a “specialized format,” which Sec. 121(d) (4) states is
“exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.” Formatting standards designed with accessibility for
people with print disabilities in mind (such as DAISY or EPUB) are, of course, not useful just for this community.
In fact, they are “universal” designs, which could potentially be equally useful for the mainstream population.

The (NFB) strongly believes that, correctly interpreted, the Chafee Amendment covers e-texts, but acknowledges
that authoritative support for this interpretation would be welcome. (End quote)

So while considering DAISY as a ’specialized format’ is in many ways the ‘preferred’ interpretation, it is not the
literal interpretation. Indeed, the ANSI/NISO standard for DAISY says in effect that it is not a protocol exclusively
derived from or for the print disability community.

Thus, although there is no legislative or judicial interpretation to date, it can just as easily as not be assumed that any
‘reproduction or distribution’ of copyrighted material in DAISY format, while claiming exemption right under the
Section 121 Chafee Amendment (provision), is actually an infringement of Copyright. JEM (end of The New York
Times post)

If DAISY is in fact not a specialized format as defined under 121(d)(4), the Authors Guild or any individual AG
member is creating a precedent by allowing the infringement of copyrighted material because it is the 'nice' thing to
do. Whether it is a nice thing to do or not, what then happens when another instance of copyright infringement
comes along and a defendant charged with infringement says that under other circumstances you declined to pursue
an obvious infringement of copyright?

... and there is further written testimony to the Copyright Office (SCCR testimony May 2009 and NOV/DEC 2009)
by Dr. Kerscher of DAISY and the VP of Government and Legal Affairs of the AAP Allan Adler that DAISY does
not in fact qualify as 'Specialized Format'.

The reason I am pursuing this is because several organizations and the US Department of Education have restricted
my ability to edit and format automated Braille files that they provide to qualified Braille users which I consider an
abrogation of the Braille reader's statutory rights granted under Section 121 (b)(1)(B) the Chafee Amendment. JEM
 
(Memo #2) Hello Mr. Turow -- You could start the process to determine whether in fact DAISY is a bona fide
'Specialized Format' as defined under US Copyright Act Section 121(d)(4):

Have your authorized representative file a DMCA take-down notice with Bookshare.org
<http://bookshare.org/about/policyDMCA > that you believe in good faith that the DAISY reproduction and
distribution of your books (as opposed to the Braille copies) are not in fact in compliance with the 'Specialized Format'
provisions of the Chafee Amendment, and are thus an infringement of your copyright privileges. JEM

Note: In a personal communication to me, the VP, Government and Legal Affairs of the AAP has said that there never
has been any judicial interpretation and limited legislative interpretation of the Chafee Amendment. I cannot afford
$400 per hour IP attorneys -- all I can do is send memos like this and hope one day one sticks.

********************************************

The Following Officers and Board Members of The Authors Guild have had one or more of their Copyrighted works
reproduced and distributed in DAISY format and made available on the website of Bookshare.org by claiming
exemption from Copyright infringement by virtue of the Section 121 d4 definition of ‘Specialized Format’ when DAISY
format may in fact not so qualify. 

President: ROY BLOUNT JR. 

Vice President: JUDY BLUME 

BARBARA TAYLOR BRADFORD 

SUSAN CHEEVER 

MARY HIGGINS CLARK 

MICHAEL CRICHTON (1942‐2008) 

CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÈS 

JAMES GLEICK 

OSCAR HIJUELOS 

NICHOLAS LEMANN 

DAVID LEVERING LEWIS 

STEPHEN MANES 

VICTOR S. NAVASKY 

DOUGLAS PRESTON 

ROXANA ROBINSON 

RACHEL VAIL 

SARAH VOWELL 
Ex Officio Members of the Council 

ROGER ANGELL 

ROBERT A.CARO 

ANNE EDWARDS 

ERICA JONG 

ROBERT K. MASSIE 

MARY POPE OSBORNE 

NICK TAYLOR 

SCOTT TUROW 

Advisors to the Council 

SHIRLEY ANN GRAU: South 

FREDERIK POHL: Mid‐West 

You might also like