From Section 121 US Copyright Act

(4) “specialized formats” means—

(A) braille, audio, or digital text which is exclusively foruse by blind or other persons with disabilities; and

(B) with respect to print instructional materials, includeslarge print formats when such materials aredistributed exclusively for use by blind or other personswith disabilities.

Baer Decision P22

Under the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act,“authorized entit(ies)” are permitted “to reproduce ordistribute copies . . . of a previously published, non-dramaticliterary work . . . in specialized formats exclusively for useby the blind or other persons with disabilities.”

NEAL Testimony Page 18

The court found that HDL was an “authorized entity” withinthe meaning of the statute because it had a primary missionof providing services to the print disabled. Moreover, thedigital copies met the definition of “specialized formats”because they were made available only to the printdisabled.

http://judiciary.house.gov/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=5B70C30E-1E06-4700-AF09-60F911E57F36

So my question is: Why did Mr. Neal feel the need to change the wording ofboth the Statute and Judge Baer's decision? The first 2 instances couldindicate that 'specialized' refers to the format itself and/or security anddistribution measures. Mr. Neal's comment can only refer to security anddistribution measures. Note that Mr. Neal states in his introduction: "Mytestimony is endorsed by the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA)."

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

Addendum 06 APRIL 2014

Note as above from Mr. Neal’s testimony:

Moreover, the digital copies met the definition of “specializedformats” because they were made available only to theprint disabled.

From the NFB Brief #106 AG vs. HT Appeal at page 28:

A grammatical reading of the relevant restrictive language in §121 alsocontradicts the Guild’s gloss on “specialized formats.” The adverb“exclusively” can properly modify a verb, adjective, or phrase, but not anoun. “Exclusively specialized” makes no sense and “exclusively” cannotmodify “format.”

However it doesn’t seem to bother anyone at the NFB or now the LCA viaMr. Neal that the word ’format’ in their interpretation of Federal Statutelanguage now seems to refer to a person or a method of distribution ratherthan a more standard definition of that word.