I just don't see any reason to try to show you something you acknowledge exists, just so you can say something you've already said, and so I can reply with something I've already said. If you'd wanted to reply to that, perhaps we'd have had something to discuss, but you have yet to choose to address it.
Well, I doubt it'd be immersion safe, but it should be possible to at least make it somewhat resistant to spills. At the least, a better form factor than a paper would be a plus.
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Why do we need more?
If anybody believe the RIAA or anybody else has engaged in such conduct, they can protest it. Of course, it will be a high burden to prove that it's frivolous, but there's a reason for that, namely the principle of American Law that everybody gets a chance in court, and even if they can't prove their case, this doesn't mean they did wrong.
On the other hand, lack of concern for the environment leads to many complications that don't work out so well. Quite a few places where farmland has gone fallow because of over-usage. Others were toxic buildup has lead to birth defects. For example there's Kissimmee River...a laudable goal, controlling flooding, right? But the end result was less than desirable.
Actions have consequences, sometimes these consequences aren't realized soon enough. That's just the way it is.
But when Amazon sells a device, are they engaging in their fair use rights, or are they violating the rights of the intellectual property creators to control how their material is handled?
Slight difference, and why I had meant to include the other paragraph.
More importantly, Amazon's is not. I might give some leniency to personal expression, but when it comes to making a profit? I think it's not exceptional to let the original creator have the control over it.
Doesn't take a lawyer to note the difference between a person with a disability who needs a service dog and a person who just wants to bring their dog into the store with them.
The issue i much bigger than just the blind. Both the MacOS and many versions of Linux have screen readers for the blind as part of the OS and there are similar products for sale or download for Windows.
The difference between these examples and Kindle is that those Operating systems aren't just Ebook readers, but are instead quite separated from the marketing of the actual books. Which makes them a tad distinct. Whereas Kindle's going to be sold as "Oh yeah, and it can read your books to you"
If you want to find a disabled person to file such a lawsuit for, go-ahead. Please also make sure to include Amazon so that they fix the interface on their Kindle to be more disabled friendly.
Then something productive might come out of your lawsuit.
Because the author's guild will kindly tell you that any of their works are available through a variety of sources besides Amazon, some of them free, which you can use, depending on your disability. Their action was instituted not to prevent the disabled from accessing the words, but to prevent the non-disabled who have no right by law to make use of such options.
This is really no different in principle than not allowing Paris Hilton to bring her dog into a store, while a genuinely disabled person is allowed to bring in their service animal.
Actually, rental stores usually pay more for their copies to have the right to rent them out. Least that's what my experience has been. I know I tried to buy a movie for my mother once, and she freaked out when she heard it was like 80 dollars. I explained to her that was for a rental copy, which she didn't need, and told her I'd look for a used version elsewhere.
And no, your statement of "but anybody could do it" doesn't pan out, since the publishers are able to realize that anybody going to that much trouble is lost to them anyway. However, Amazon doing it puts things in a different light.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you're right, this is a blog entry from OCTOBER.
Somebody tell Kdawson to at least give us current dirt, not stuff from months ago.
Dude, if you can make a functional space craft that looks like an English Police box, I'll support your candidacy for head of Nasa.
It's not North Carolina filing this, but somebody in North Carolina.
Big difference.
I just don't see any reason to try to show you something you acknowledge exists, just so you can say something you've already said, and so I can reply with something I've already said. If you'd wanted to reply to that, perhaps we'd have had something to discuss, but you have yet to choose to address it.
Maybe somebody ought to look at those filings for the laws being cited if he wants names.
Why would I bother naming them, if you're just going to claim they're ineffective? Seems to me you're already admitting they do exist.
So why not cut to the heart of the matter...which I already addressed, so I refer you back to my prior post.
It's a high standard to prove, and I think you're illustrating quite clearly why it should be.
Well, I doubt it'd be immersion safe, but it should be possible to at least make it somewhat resistant to spills. At the least, a better form factor than a paper would be a plus.
There are already laws in place to protect against the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Why do we need more?
If anybody believe the RIAA or anybody else has engaged in such conduct, they can protest it. Of course, it will be a high burden to prove that it's frivolous, but there's a reason for that, namely the principle of American Law that everybody gets a chance in court, and even if they can't prove their case, this doesn't mean they did wrong.
Perhaps in something like water or sewer where nothing changes.
The work crews digging up the road by my house would beg to differ.
On the other hand, lack of concern for the environment leads to many complications that don't work out so well. Quite a few places where farmland has gone fallow because of over-usage. Others were toxic buildup has lead to birth defects. For example there's Kissimmee River...a laudable goal, controlling flooding, right? But the end result was less than desirable.
Actions have consequences, sometimes these consequences aren't realized soon enough. That's just the way it is.
It burns! It burns!
I'm sure most P2P protocols aren't designed to congest networks, but that doesn't mean they don't.
Yeah, cuz we all know harassing folks is the surest way to change their minds.
Or you know, tell them that they were right, and that they shouldn't expect anything except their opponents to act like a bunch of hooligans.
But when Amazon sells a device, are they engaging in their fair use rights, or are they violating the rights of the intellectual property creators to control how their material is handled?
Slight difference, and why I had meant to include the other paragraph.
If a doctor kept medical records on paper in a filing cabinet at home, would they let anybody else touch that cabinet?
Maybe. I know I can barely keep my pets out of places I don't want them to go. I can imagine children and guests could be worse.
Not at all, any person with a disability impacting their ability to read has a plethora of avenues that they can use, most of them better than Kindle.
Take a look at:
http://www.loc.gov/nls/
Oops, clipped a line.
More importantly, Amazon's is not. I might give some leniency to personal expression, but when it comes to making a profit? I think it's not exceptional to let the original creator have the control over it.
Your free speech is fine. Your free action is not.
Blind persons have access through existing programs that offer them books in braille or audio form, often for free.
So no, it's not going to run afoul of the ADA.
Doesn't take a lawyer to note the difference between a person with a disability who needs a service dog and a person who just wants to bring their dog into the store with them.
It's a rather easy distinction to recognize.
The issue i much bigger than just the blind. Both the MacOS and many versions of Linux have screen readers for the blind as part of the OS and there are similar products for sale or download for Windows.
The difference between these examples and Kindle is that those Operating systems aren't just Ebook readers, but are instead quite separated from the marketing of the actual books. Which makes them a tad distinct. Whereas Kindle's going to be sold as "Oh yeah, and it can read your books to you"
If you want to find a disabled person to file such a lawsuit for, go-ahead. Please also make sure to include Amazon so that they fix the interface on their Kindle to be more disabled friendly.
Then something productive might come out of your lawsuit.
Because the author's guild will kindly tell you that any of their works are available through a variety of sources besides Amazon, some of them free, which you can use, depending on your disability. Their action was instituted not to prevent the disabled from accessing the words, but to prevent the non-disabled who have no right by law to make use of such options.
This is really no different in principle than not allowing Paris Hilton to bring her dog into a store, while a genuinely disabled person is allowed to bring in their service animal.
Good for then, then we still have teh question of whether it'd be worthwhile to bother.
Actually, rental stores usually pay more for their copies to have the right to rent them out. Least that's what my experience has been. I know I tried to buy a movie for my mother once, and she freaked out when she heard it was like 80 dollars. I explained to her that was for a rental copy, which she didn't need, and told her I'd look for a used version elsewhere.
And no, your statement of "but anybody could do it" doesn't pan out, since the publishers are able to realize that anybody going to that much trouble is lost to them anyway. However, Amazon doing it puts things in a different light.
You may not believe it, but it's true.