UNTERHALTER AJ copies of books in the university library were often not available because authorisation from copyright owners could not be obtained. He describes the book famine experienced by persons with visual and print disabilities. Even where books are available in a format somewhat accessible to these persons, one such format may not be converted into another that is best suited to the user, without authorisation. This is of particular concern in respect of technical books. Mr Low also references the importance of an American non-profit library service, Bookshare, that has a local library, but cross-border distribution requires permission from copyright owners. [54] To like effect, Mr Gama, a teacher at a school for the deaf and the blind, describes how many special schools across the country struggle to obtain sufficient textbooks in accessible format copies. Apart from textbooks, there are often few books available to many learners who are blind. This clearly disadvantages these learners and impairs their dignity. After learners leave school, their position is often worse still, lacking the assistance their schools were able to offer. [55] Finally, Justice Yacoob, a retired judge of this Court, blind since infancy, describes the plight of poor people with a visual disability who cannot afford to buy books. He says this: “My own experience tells me that it is impossible to express in words how urgent this is. The best I can do is say that every day that the present Copyright Act prevails in the form in which it is, literally thousands of blind and visually impaired people are deprived of reading material, and the prejudice to them is in fact irreparable, incalculable, and very difficult to put into words. I would suggest that even without it being put into words, the prejudice is obvious.” [56] Blind SA goes on to explain that the limitation of rights that the Copyright Act brings about cannot be justified in terms of section 36 of the Constitution. The deponent then sets out the relief that is sought. First, Blind SA contends that we should declare the Copyright Act inconsistent with the Constitution to the extent that: (a) it limits and/or prevents persons with visual and print disabilities accessing works under 23