Justice Department settlement puts on-campus Kindle use on hold
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 13th 2010 8:51PM
posted January 13th 2010 8:51PM
Amazon may have recently announced it was beefing up the Kindle's functionality for vision-impaired users, but it looks like that's too little too late for three universities using Kindles as an alternative to textbooks, who have now agreed to shelve the e-readers until such enhancements are in place as part of a settlement with the Justice Department. Those universities include Pace, Case Western, and Reed College, who were all sued by two organizations representing the blind, which alleged that while the Kindle has a text-to-speech function, the menus do not, thereby making them impossible for blind students to use -- another university testing the Kindle, Arizona State, has already reached a similar settlement. Assuming Amazon lives up to its promises, however, it looks like the Kindles could be put back to use as soon as this summer -- and the universities in question will still be able to finish any pilot programs currently taking place this semester, just not expand their use.
I love America. 2 steps forward and 3 steps back to please small groups.
idiots. anything to keep making students pay 329% more for books.
The point is mute anyway, eReaders are already dead. Why buy a slow as molasses eReader when, for around the same price you can buy a notebook that does everything better, with color, Internet capabilities and so much more? Or better yet, one of the dozens of slate computers entering the market this year.
@greatpix Actually, you can't hold a notebook in one hand and the screen is a lot harder on your eyes if you read a lot. Ereaders are amazing if you go through 3 books a month.
@greatpix
Obviously you have never used an ebook reader such as the Kindle. 2 week battery life and much easier on the eyes. FWIW, it's a moot point not mute.
@greatpix
Ereaders are not dead. They are evolving. The next generation coming later this year have much faster screens.
A general purpose device like a laptop suck for reading -- large, heavy, fragile, clumsy to hold, battery sucking devices.
An Ereader is small, lightweight, relatively robust, has controls designed for reading and the screens are much easier on your eyes.
@greatpix
The term is "the point is moot", not mute
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot+point
Okay, lets just relax for a moment. Instead of removing the Kindle I'm sure Amazon would give every blind student a free braille textbook. Right Jeff?
Since they have electronic braille devices it is much preferable is text comes in electronic form, seems obvious, problem is though that amazon encodes stuff and you'd need an braille device that was compatible.
Alternatively you can use audio books, or books read in audio, the last option would also work with electronic files, and does so in the kindle, although I could not stand it for more than 5 seconds when I heard a sample of the kindle's text-to-speech, not sure how the blind feel though.
Why? So let's get this all straightened out.
I have no problem with visually impaired or handicapped persons. But it make's no sense whatsoever to impede the growth of technology use by students in such a way. The key words here are "an alternative to textbooks". No not a required replacement for text books but an alternative. Should monitors be banned from educational system's because some can't see them? Should speakers, since some can't hear them? Should stairs, since some can't walk up them? Should handicap parking spaces be removed since I can't use them? Should we take Braille off of signs, since most can't read them? No, everyone in this world has different needs, and as such should be able to fulfill said needs. But just because something's not usuable doesn't mean it should be banned. Could the human race for once just stop, and instead of whipping out their cellphone's and checkbooks to call a lawyer, try and improve life for everyone as a whole?
@gletob Exactly. Well said. It's just flat-out stupid and infantile what these two organizations did. "waaaah! The other kids at school have something I don't so I'm going to make sure that can't have it anymore! waaaaaahhh!" It's like in kindergarten when a student brings candy to class to eat. The teacher says he has to share it with everyone else or he can't eat it. WHY!? IT'S HIS CANDY! And you wonder what the hell is wrong with this country? Everyone wants a freaken handout nowadays and nobody is allowed to have more wealth than anyone else? This whole damn country is going down the dark, dark hole of socialism and the government is pushing it there. Why did the Department of Justice have to get involved? What business is it of theirs that they had to BAN a highly useful tool from being used in an educational setting because two liberal activist groups complained? You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Instead of HELPING the blind students by maybe providing them with an alternative in the meantime while the Kindle is being updated, they just outright BANNED IT FROM BEING USED AT ALL. "Well if everyone can't have it then no one can!" WTF? When did that become law of the land? Oh, so because not everyone can own a yacht and live in a mansion, you're not allowed to either. WTF!? I SICK and TIRED of this liberal socialist BS mentality that we have got to steal from those who have and give it to those who don't and if we can't, then we have to destroy it. NO, I don't think so!
Sure, it sucks to be blind, no doubt about it. But seriously, ruining a great opportunity because a very small minority starts bitching and moaning about it is definitely not the answer. Perhaps the government could provide Amazon or some other company with a subsidy to produce a new device or adapt/modify a currently available device to provide similar benefits to those with visual impairments/disabilities. NO, the freaken government has to intervene and mess with the private sector AGAIN. When is the government going to leave Americans ALONE!? Tyranny!!!!!!!!
(Deliberately taking a contrary position to most people here)
Of course this means that the changes to the Kindle get done right at the start. No dithering around with perhaps Amazon fixing things someday, or perhaps being forgotten. Better to fight this out now when the Kindle is still being evaluated and only used in a small number of situations.
When a device goes from being a casual gadget to being a compulsory part of getting an education, then these things matter.
Having said all that, surely this could have been dealt with without bringing the Justice system into play.
@Gregorian
You make a great devil's advocate. :-)
The thing I don't get is what prevents students from buying a Kindle themselves for this use? Is the Justice Department going to come to their doorstep and demand you buy a physical textbook? On this front, I'm not really sure what's going on here.
If the price of textbooks on the Kindle is notably cheaper, and textbook availability is there, I'm definitely going to start saving my pennies.
@BigJayDogg3 I think it's because the use of the Kindle in the classroom is a standard for everyone in the class. The Kindle is used by the professor and the professor teaches using the Kindle. Thus, it is an accepted tool for use in the classroom. The two organizations are complaining that it's not fair because blind people can't use the same tool the professor can. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense because there are plenty of alternatives available, including just downloading the eBook to their braille-capable portable computer and bringing it to class. If the blind students don't have one, then buy one for them. Or provide the student with a free braille copy of the textbook. Or a host of other possibilities that don't include screwing up a good opportunity for everyone else. It's a classic case of the few screwing it up for the many. This "political correctness" crap didn't work out so well at Ft. Hood..."pc" is really starting to interfere with our lives. I'm sick of it.
@Gregorian
I appreciate that insight. Did not think of it that way and it was a good enough to make me think this situation isn't ridiculous anymore.
And honestly they're only impeding implementation in a few areas nut are getting a guaranteed change
@yoko1324
Why buy anything for the blind people? Why don't they simply ask for help with menus, and these special-interest firms go suck it? I guess "suck it" doesn't really fly in these PC days. Sad story.
There is no ruling made, they made a deal, a settlement means a judge doesn't make a ruling but both parties come to terms, and the terms agreed is to wait a bit (2 years) before continuing with e-readers.
So no there is no force involved, and no law enforced, it ended exactly as suggested, as an agreement outside all the suing stuff, and neither party won, since they just sat down and agreed.
There has to be more to this story. The use of Kindles does not deprive anyone from any access which they had before. How is this suit fair to anyone?
There has to be more to this story.
@Dr Yusuf AlKindi
That's fine. If you are buying it as an optional assistance to you and your study, that affects no-one but yourself.
But if you turn up to day one of a subject and are told that your texts are to be supplied on Kindle, and ONLY Kindle because that's the way the university does things, then a blind student is stuffed.
Yes, a book has the same problems, but you've got a new tech here with the ability to solve the problem with a little bit more programming.
So, with a bit of updating, the Kindle can be a great tool for the blind.
This isn't a trolling question, just a genuine question: under what authority can the DOJ suspend Kindle use due to a certain feature lacking? Is there some regulation that states all e-book readers have to be visually-impaired accessible?
The Kindle isn't mandated for use by anybody, so unless I'm missing something here, I'm not sure where the DOJ got the authority to do this. If we're talking about this in the context of students being required to use them, I too agree with the earlier sentiments of traditional textbooks not being VI-friendly anyway.
@paul34
Everyone has to have equal access. Its the same way a public building has to have wheelchair access, and how you can't not hire or fire someone based upon their disability.
@paul34
Addendum: I think the problem with it is the Kindles were supplied in some way, shape, form or fashion by the university. If they were paid for with university funds, then that same advantage has to be available for all students.
@BigJayDogg3
Well, wouldn't that be an issue for the state to take of, since it is a state university, then?
Certainly I'm for providing reasonable accomodations for blind people. But the Americans with Disabilities Act is a travesty. It's just a means for money-hungry frivolous lawsuits that forces million of dollars in unwarranted costs and stifles progress. How about instead of paying millions for attorneys fees, they work with Amazon to improve the device and make it completely useable by blind people.. maybe some kind of audio attachment or whatever... But I guess suing is easier than finding actual solutions?!?
At the Keynote,Steve Jobs will come out with his iSlate and say "Bring me your tired, your poor,your blind. I have the answer."
I really don't understand the concept on what these people are suing. Why are they concerned about what the other students are using. Isn't there a middle road, where the blind students can use their normal brail books and the seeing can use e-readers?
This is so stupid, following this concept the blind interest groups could sue all not brail book makers and the whole pen an pencil making industry...
The universities are probably going to need to hack the kindle a bit for this to work since some textbooks may have TTS disabled....
@ShyGuy91284
Just curious, but why the hell would you ever disable TTS? I mean, I may understand for a biology or chem textbook that has words that would send an E-reader's little TTS function spinning with some of the words in it, I guess.
I work in the field of accessible technology, so let me make a few comments here.
1. These universities are public institutions using public money. Blind people are citizens and pay taxes. You may not think that gives them any leverage, but the legal system says they do.
2. No one is holding back innovation. Accessibility *is* innovation. Text to speech *is* innovation. Innovations that serve human needs are worth doing. Carefully designed, innovative interfaces that serve all comers should be a goal, not an afterthought.
3. Why lawsuits? Accessibility issues get raised again and again with ICT companies. Sometimes there's progress without legal recourse, but most of the time there's not. At a certain point disability advocates get tired of begging for favors. You would too.
4. What about the "free market"? I love it, but it does fail sometimes. If there were a disease that only affected 1000 people, few pharmaceutical firms would sell the cure at an affordable price. Not because they're evil, but because the market would not provide a strong enough motivation. Same here. Sometimes government action is required to provide an obvious benefit that the market can't provide itself. Anyone here think environmental cleanup is a good idea? No discrimination based on race, gender, etc.? Food inspection? Traffic signals?
For more information on an upcoming law on accessible ICT, visit http://coataccess.org.
This is just silly. Being blind is a handicap. There's no reason to handicap the rest of the academic world as well.....
I do hope they get around to suing ford next for not making cars for the blind and the music industry for not producing albums for the deaf.
How come people just don't get the concept of what a settlement is? Is it that hard to understand?
It's simple, 2 parties are in court, both come together outside of court and make an agreement to stop suing each other if both or one gives in a bit, they sign, the suit is dropped, that means there's no final judgment made by a judge since the parties dealt with it themselves, and therefore there is no law either, just a (binding) agreement between the parties involved, and not the population at large, and therefore no precedent either set in law since the court was not used in the end.
It's used in every damn crime and law tv-show plot, several times a week.