With all due respect, Scott, laws which disparately impact certain groups or classes of people have been flouted through civil disobedience since the introduction of legal systems, e.g., civil rights, disability rights, employment rights, etc. The United States might not exist were it not for disobeying laws. I am an attorney, and it continues to amaze me how slowly the U.S. is moving to accommodate disability, and how snail-paced the societal shift in attitudes toward us has been. and it seems that whenever a company like Apple makes great strides in accommodating blindness off the shelf, plenty of other technologies come along and do not bother to incorporate us into their equation. So many educational apps, for example, are not accessible, though they could be, and given the push now to have iPads in classrooms, once again blind, visually impaired, and otherwise print-disabled students will be left out. Apple moves us two steps forward, and "progress" (for others) moves us three steps back. I should be able to turn on a television, flip a switch, or turn on a transmitter, and get descriptions. I should be able to access books on the Nook or the Kindle, not just iBooks. I cannot express, and I am sure others here agree, the happiness I feel when a new release or best-selling publication is available on iBooks. (Incidentally, if a book is available on iBooks and on bookshare.org, I purchase the book. Yet, I have lost quite a lot of money as a published author -- as soon as my book was published, I sent a copy to bookshare.org; it was more important to me to have it available at the same time to the blind and print-disabled. The Authors Guild apparently does not care about such access, despite the fact that they would actually get money from us.) I would happily go to the movies more and happily purchase audio-described movies through iTunes if they were available. Even movies which are released with audio description are not always sold through movie resellers -- goodness knows I have tried. To date, I have only located The Incredible Hulk, from 2008, which I purchased for my son. Even Apple could do more. It could strengthen its requirements for apps. It has provided developers with the means to make their apps VoiceOver accessible, and there are plenty of apps out there which could be so. Only apps that are visual by their very nature should be exempted. But, as usual, profit trumps people, despite the fact that the disabled community rewards those who remember us with our business. Frankly, I would prefer to purchase the audio-described movies and shows I download from the vault, so that I could watch them with sighted friends and family. I wish I could show a film to a class and not have to ask my para or a student to tell me what is going on. The entertainment industry gets plenty of my money. If they want more, they should remember that I deserve to be able to access their material independently. OK. Topic over. Those of you who wish to continue this off-list are welcome; I've appreciated your correspondence thus far. Christine On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:13 AM, Scott Howell wrote:
> I am sure commenting on this only adds fuel to the fire, but I did want to > point out that as I recall the person that is responsible for this movie > vault thing also runs a legit company. I would find it difficult to believe > that he has not checked into this because no one would want to put their > business assets at risk. If there truly is an investigation then prove it. I > get pretty annoyed when people claim something, but cannot or do not provide > any reference to back those claims. And for the record I do not condone > pirating of any kind and believe that regardless of accessibility issues > even blind people must follow the laws. > > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Christine Grassman wrote: > >> Naturally, if the moderator deems this discussion verboten, I will refrain >> further, but I would feel remiss not to point out the following for >> consideration: >> 1. As of several hours ago, there was nothing on the FBI's official web site >> regarding an investigation, nor were there any press releases or other >> comparable references to an investigation of the movie vault. A reference >> would be appreciated; mere speculation or rumor could be deemed libelous. >> >> 2. The problem industries have with illegal file-sharing is loss of revenue. >> Since, at least in the United States, there is virtually no way to purchase >> audio-described movies or television shows, the industry is not being >> cheated of revenue. >> 3. The files are straight audio, with no ability, for example, to "watch" >> with sighted peers while having the benefit of the audio description. This >> is not at all remotely similar to downloading a film for the family to >> watch. That being said, the vast majority of the sighted community does this >> with impunity, even though many of the shows and movies they download can be >> seen for free when they are are shown on television. We, on the other hand, >> cannot even enjoy full access to these shows when they *are* on television. >> Either they are not audio-described at all, or it is not easy to turn on the >> secondary audio channel, or a particular station only carries foreign >> language broadcasts on the SAC rather than audio description. Comparing >> access to audio-described movies and shows in mp3 format to the type of >> file-sharing which goes on 24/7 on hundreds and thousands of sites is a >> stretch. >> 4. If the government and/or the involved industries wish to do something >> about the existence of resources like the movie vault, the former should >> mandate, and the latter should provide a market from which we can obtain >> these items. I have been able to watch a non-described movie with others >> after listening to an mp3 file and tell another blind person what is going >> on thanks to that previous experience. My two blind children have been able >> to enjoy fare which their peers enjoyed months or years ago. Until the >> entertainment industry levels the playing field, I will utilize resources >> like the movie vault with the same guiltless pleasure I take in >> bookshare.org (and, by the way, it is possible to download books from >> bookshare.org which are available commercially.) We cannot use the Kindle as >> others do. WE cannot use the Nook. We are severely limited in what we can >> access independently when it comes to entertainment, and we must even still >> fight for access to education at every level, despite technological >> advances. Holding us to the same standards as the vast majority of illegal >> file-sharers is legally, morally, and economically inequitable. >> >> Christine >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
