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.

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 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.