From Section 121 US Copyright Act (4) specialized formats means (A) braille, audio, or digital text which

is exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities; and (B) with respect to print instructional materials, includes large print formats when such materials are distributed exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities. Baer Decision P22 Under the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act, authorized entit(ies) are permitted to reproduce or distribute copies . . . of a previously published, non-dramatic literary work . . . in specialized formats exclusively for use by the blind or other persons with disabilities. NEAL Testimony Page 18 The court found that HDL was an authorized entity within the meaning of the statute because it had a primary mission of providing services to the print disabled. Moreover, the digital copies met the definition of specialized formats because they were made available only to the print disabled. http://judiciary.house.gov/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=5B70C30 E-1E06-4700-AF09-60F911E57F36 So my question is: Why did Mr. Neal feel the need to change the wording of both the Statute and Judge Baers decision? The first 2 instances could indicate that specialized refers to the format itself and/or security and distribution measures. Mr. Neals comment can only refer to security and distribution measures. Note that Mr. Neal states in his introduction: "My testimony is endorsed by the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA)."

I guess I could offer suggestions as to why some persons need to change the statute language but there must be something going on when they feel the need to do so.

Addendum 06 APRIL 2014 Note as above from Mr. Neals testimony: Moreover, the digital copies met the definition of specialized formats because they were made available only to the print disabled. From the NFB Brief #106 AG vs. HT Appeal at page 28: A grammatical reading of the relevant restrictive language in 121 also contradicts the Guilds gloss on specialized formats. The adverb exclusively can properly modify a verb, adjective, or phrase, but not a noun. Exclusively specialized makes no sense and exclusively cannot modify format. However it doesnt seem to bother anyone at the NFB or now the LCA via Mr. Neal that the word format in their interpretation of Federal Statute language now seems to refer to a person or a method of distribution rather than a more standard definition of that word.