USA, Canada and the EU attempt to kill treaty to protect blind people's access to wri

[Fake51]

From a brief reading of the document, there is an interesting lack of a main point: Article 4.a does NOT specify that the work needs to be unavailable in an accessible format for a non-profit to be able to convert into an accessible format and send it to all interested visually impaired persons on the planet. I'm sure this is intended, but it's lacking from paragraph 4 as far as I can see (and no, it doesn't seem to be included in later paragraphs either). It's a fairly important point: without it, any given organisation that HAS LEGAL ACCESS TO THE WORK (and I honestly don't know what that means) can just convert it and host a torrent of it for visually impaired people to download.

Apart from that, Sirbruce is wrong in stating that for-profit companies will be allowed to rip him off - if they make money on it they are required by this document to remunerate the rights holder, unless things fall under normal copyright exemptions.

Regards
Fake

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

To go back to the restaurant example, it would be saying instead of requiring you offer disabled access or be fined and eventually shut down, saying that you can run your restaurant without disabled access, but anyone else can come along and steal your chairs, tables, food, menu, and so on and put up an identical restaurant with disabled access using your name on it.

Does this make sense?

Not really as we are talking about Intellectual property. More like if you are that restaurant we should be allowed to steal your secret family recipe for excellent chicken wings.

the case here is that whats "Morally" right is currently Illegal to do in many countries when it comes to IP. this proposal plans to extend the letter of the law to conform to what is "moral" but you are disagreeing that based on the Letter of this proposed law people would be able to steal your work. but what I think you are forgetting is the spirit of the law.

based on the spirt of the law, as written, you would have the rights to your work at all times, except when a disability makes it impossible for that person to experience your work. if you, as an author, or your publisher, decide to cater to that disability in your own way, which any normal person could say, Yes, that is reasonable, and another company tries to pass your work off for cheap or free without your permission, you have the right to sue them, for example, you have a kindle book which hast TTS disabled, and you have a way to give a disabled person a TTS Enabled version of the text, any reasonable person would say that another person selling another verson of the text without your permission with the same functionality is in the wrong.

If you don't have a copy catered to someone with a disability, someone else will make it for you, since this was never a sale in the first place, you arent losing anything and no one is stealing from you.

IP laws either don't exist, or those that do were written by the people trying to take away rights from the average consumer, so those laws that are on the books don't match with what an average person would think is morally right. anyone reading this law would say this is a law which matches with what a person thinks is morally right

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by Fake51

From a brief reading of the document, there is an interesting lack of a main point: Article 4.a does NOT specify that the work needs to be unavailable in an accessible format for a non-profit ....

read 4c3 and d. its pointed out there.

[Fake51]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

read 4c3 and d. its pointed out there.

4.c3 deals with for-profit organisations and 4.d explains what reasonably available means. Neither of those deal with 4.a or 4.b. This means that as the text stands, 4.a is NOT limited by the availability of versions of the work for visually impaired people.

Regards
Fake

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Fake51

Apart from that, Sirbruce is wrong in stating that for-profit companies will be allowed to rip him off - if they make money on it they are required by this document to remunerate the rights holder, unless things fall under normal copyright exemptions.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Only that if someone does it non-profit, it's still taking money out of my pocket, and if someone does it for profit, the terms of what I'm allowed to get are decided by some beauracrat or politician, not by my contract. More specifically, it states that while the prices in developed countries can be expected to be close to equivalent to what my book usually sells for, in developing countries it can be expected to be much, much less.

[Fake51]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Only that if someone does it non-profit, it's still taking money out of my pocket

No it's not. Taking money out of your pocket means that you should be getting money you're not. If you're not selling the book in an accessible version you won't get any money from visually disabled people as they won't buy your book. Hence you will lose nothing. Only if you are in fact selling the book in an accessible version and someone sees fit to distribute another accessible version for free (if that will be legal by the law) you will lose money. The fact that someone distributes accessible versions of your books to visually disabled people that would not otherwise buy your books can never cost you money.

and if someone does it for profit, the terms of what I'm allowed to get are decided by some beauracrat or politician, not by my contract. More specifically, it states that while the prices in developed countries can be expected to be close to equivalent to what my book usually sells for, in developing countries it can be expected to be much, much less.

I don't want to be impolite but the notion that you can sell a book at the same price in developed countries as in developing countries is ridiculous. Have a look at what the movie industry is doing in the far east for some ideas of just how stupid that notion is.

Regards
Fake

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Fake51

No it's not. Taking money out of your pocket means that you should be getting money you're not. If you're not selling the book in an accessible version you won't get any money from visually disabled people as they won't buy your book. Hence you will lose nothing.

You seem to be missing some of the important details of this discussion. Look up a few posts. The proposal allows them to make such free copies EVEN IF MY ACCESSIBLE VERSION IS AVAILABLE. Furthermore, EVEN IF MY ACCESSIBLE VERSION IS AVAILABLE, if some governmental official decides it costs too much, then my version is no longer considered accessible.

Originally Posted by Fake51

I don't want to be impolite but the notion that you can sell a book at the same price in developed countries as in developing countries is ridiculous. Have a look at what the movie industry is doing in the far east for some ideas of just how stupid that notion is.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding crucial details of this discussion. The issue is not the same price in developed countries as in developing countries. The issue is the arbitrarily lower price for the disabled version than the regular print version in developing countries. Whatever I sell my regular version for, if my disabled version isn't cheaper enough by some governmental rule, I lose my protection.

[Fake51]

You know, if you're going to quote me without reading what you quote, don't bother.

Regards
Fake

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Fake51

You know, if you're going to quote me without reading what you quote, don't bother.

Apparently, everybody except sirburce doesn't understand the discussion.

[netseeker]

Relax people. Re-Read the draft and then take a look at the comparatively few amount of current books that are published as special, accessible versions for visually impaired people. It's a shame! Authors and copyright holders (including me) tend to forget these people. This is just the bitter truth and shows why new rules for visually impaired people are necessary in our "modern society".

I couldn't care less if visually impaired people are allowed to get my works for free (or low-priced). Even commercial redistribution to other visually impaired people doesn't give me headache. They aren't my customers now and offering a special version for visually impaired people is very often a money-losing business (far too few buyers). Just my two cents.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Kamm,

Personal attacks are NOT ACCEPTABLE on MR. You are welcome to disagree with peoples' viewpoints, but lay off the personal abuse. Attack the argument, not the person.

Thank you,

[Moderator]

I did, see my first response, the "non-commercially written" one.

The second one simply mirrors his sheer, breathtaking ignorance - and this is *NOT* adhom, to say "ignorance", let's not confuse words. For the rest, sorry.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Publishers might not like it, but as an author it's a much preferable solution, as I still get compensated fairly.

Is it me or is it really this unabashed display of cheap greed?

[kamm]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Relax people. Re-Read the draft and then take a look at the comparatively few amount of current books that are published as special, accessible versions for visually impaired people. It's a shame! Authors and copyright holders (including me) tend to forget these people. This is just the bitter truth and shows why new rules for visually impaired people are necessary in our "modern society".

I couldn't care less if visually impaired people are allowed to get my works for free (or low-priced). Even commercial redistribution to other visually impaired people doesn't give me headache. They aren't my customers now and offering a special version for visually impaired people is very often a money-losing business (far too few buyers). Just my two cents.

AMEN. Good to know other copyright holders think the same way I do (yes, I also have some from my other life. )

[Fake51]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Relax people. Re-Read the draft and then take a look at the comparatively few amount of current books that are published as special, accessible versions for visually impaired people. It's a shame! Authors and copyright holders (including me) tend to forget these people. This is just the bitter truth and shows why new rules for visually impaired people are necessary in our "modern society".

I couldn't care less if visually impaired people are allowed to get my works for free (or low-priced). Even commercial redistribution to other visually impaired people doesn't give me headache. They aren't my customers now and offering a special version for visually impaired people is very often a money-losing business (far too few buyers). Just my two cents.

I think that's a very honourable sentiment and obviously the right way to go - it's a great idea to allow organisations and individuals to create accessible versions of works for the visually impaired. However, I'm not entirely sure that it's the best idea to allow non-profits to do it regardless of whether or not someone else has already done it.

Suppose an author's publisher is creating an accessible version of a given work by that author. Now it is possible for visually impaired people to get to this work. However, someone with "legal access" to the work decides that it would be cooler for the visually impaired if they could just get it for free - so they do another accessible version and start distributing it. This will leave the publisher at a loss and make sure they don't bother to do an accessible version of the authors work next time. Will someone else? Who knows ...

Regards
Fake

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by kamm

Is it me or is it really this unabashed display of cheap greed?

You know, this sort of statement is really unhelpful to the conversation. Unless you're prepared to attack all forms of capitalism, "greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed works." So where do you draw the line between greed and not-greed, and why is your line better than someone else's?

I've suggested a legal remedy that would allow the visually impaired access to published books, while still respecting the author's rights. I've opposed a different legal rememedy that would allow the visually impaired access to published books in a manner that does not respect the author's rights. And that makes me the greedy bad guy?