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

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I'm sorry, but how is this an argument against not enforcing audiobook versions for every title? You're only proving my point that forcing the original publisher to provide different versions of each title is less efficient/far more expensive than just leaving those to non-profits (or what/whoever).

What you were responding to was the notion that legislation requiring publishers to allow access to books forthe visually impaired was cost-prohibitive. My point was that legislation requiring businesses to allow access to the disabled did not seem to be so; the costs were absorbed.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I love red herrings too. They're ever so umami.

Dismissing them as red herrings doesn't make them so. If you can't show how the logic you're advocating applies to one situation and not the other then you're just reciting talking points with little understanding of the reasons behind them.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Also, why exactly are you avoiding my main point in that post? Just because it's harder to respond to using those exciting "there's no accounting for tastes" arguments?

I thought I responded to every relevant point you made that warranted a response. Unless the point was "how dare you oppose anything that could help disabled people, you horrible, horrible person you" in which case I and Barack Obama both seem to be in the same position.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

What you were responding to was the notion that legislation requiring publishers to allow access to books for the visually impaired was cost-prohibitive. My point was that legislation requiring businesses to allow access to the disabled did not seem to be so; the costs were absorbed.

You do realise the difference between a one-time investment and a cost that is incurred every time you publish a book, right? And how one is substantially higher than the other?

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Dismissing them as red herrings doesn't make them so. If you can't show how the logic you're advocating applies to one situation and not the other then you're just reciting talking points with little understanding of the reasons behind them.

No, the burden of proof is on the person positing, not on the person discrediting. That only starts once something is accepted as fact.
Anyway, I'll bite:

Saying poor people need to pay the same amount for the same work as rich people is possibly discrimination as well, and in any case not just by the same logic.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "discrimination" is a term that is not legally&Medically circumscribed.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I thought I responded to every relevant point you made that warranted a response.

Really? Not even the bit about how "fair" refers to the fact that you get a limited time monopoly, and not to the fair in the sense of "any price I want". As you probably already realise, a price of 10000$ is not "fair", as it won't sell any copies; OTOH, it's unproblematic, because noone is forced to buy it. However, once you start selling your book at a price point at which it becomes a good seller, you're being "unfair" by saying that only non-blinds can read it, unless they pay the alternative price.
As long as you're not being read, I doubt the blind people will care that it's not available, though.

Unless the point was "how dare you oppose anything that could help disabled people, you horrible, horrible person you" in which case I and Barack Obama both seem to be in the same position.

Why are you so hard trying to make a straw man out of me?
As you said so eloquently before, "I don't see how you got anything like that from what I wrote, unless colored by your own prejudices.".

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

You do realise the difference between a one-time investment and a cost that is incurred every time you publish a book, right? And how one is substantially higher than the other?

But new businesses come and go as well. I confess, I have not done an in-depth dollar analysis of what the cost would be... and neither have you. The point is, yes, it's expensive to provide for the disabled, but it's been done before.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

No, the burden of proof is on the person positing, not on the person discrediting. That only starts once something is accepted as fact.

Like the burden of proof is on you to show that my proposed alternative is too expensive?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "discrimination" is a term that is not legally&Medically circumscribed.

Actually, you're getting into the realm of the different levels of "protected class", and what level of "scrutiny" is applied to discrimination claims. There's a whole lot of unsettled law in this area. But you're not arguing what is legal or not; you're arguing what you think is moral and ethical or not. And thus I challenge you to provide a reasonable distinction between seemingly equivalent cases.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Really? Not even the bit about how "fair" refers to the fact that you get a limited time monopoly, and not to the fair in the sense of "any price I want".

The tying of the notion of the limited time grant of copyright protection with limitations on other free market rights is, I'll admit, somehwat novel to my ears, but no, I don't think it warrants a response any more than a similar statement about trademarks or patents.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Why are you so hard trying to make a straw man out of me?
As you said so eloquently before, "I don't see how you got anything like that from what I wrote, unless colored by your own prejudices.".

I didn't say that was your point. I didn't know what unanswered point you were referring to, so I guessed at one based on the tone of your previous comments.

I realize that there is disagreement here. My position is that there are better ways to provide for universal access by the visually impaired, without needing to further erode author's rights, than are put forth by the proposed treaty. While some people here may disagree, I don't appreciate being villified as being a greedy, uncaring, you-probably-kick-your-dog-too bastard for saying so.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

without needing to further erode author's rights

I'm sorry, but what further legal erosion are you talking about exactly?
The fact that copyright now expires after about one-and-a-half to two centuries, and will probably be extended further once mickey mouse ages more?

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Like the burden of proof is on you to show that my proposed alternative is too expensive?

No, it's not quite that easy. The proving starts with the first assertion, not with the first assertion after someone mentions "burden of proof".

Actually, you're getting into the realm of the different levels of "protected class", and what level of "scrutiny" is applied to discrimination claims. There's a whole lot of unsettled law in this area. But you're not arguing what is legal or not; you're arguing what you think is moral and ethical or not. And thus I challenge you to provide a reasonable distinction between seemingly equivalent cases.

I am? Amazing. And I thought I mentioned "legal/Medical" in my last post. Must be the linguistic barrier we are experiencing, with me not being an American.

The tying of the notion of the limited time grant of copyright protection with limitations on other free market rights is, I'll admit, somehwat novel to my ears, but no, I don't think it warrants a response any more than a similar statement about trademarks or patents.

That really is a shame.

off-topic: I really love buying books from amazon.com, because the $ is worth so amazingly little. In fact, I would be paying a lot more if I had to buy those books locally, (although I haven't the faintest if we also pay more royalties locally) so I'm really happy that we have a free trade agreement there.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I realize that there is disagreement here. My position is that there are better ways to provide for universal access by the visually impaired, without needing to further erode author's rights, than are put forth by the proposed treaty. While some people here may disagree, I don't appreciate being villified as being a greedy, uncaring, you-probably-kick-your-dog-too bastard for saying so.

When kacir started this thread the tone was one of "The USA, Canada, and the EU are trying to kill a treaty that contains provisions to protect blind people's access to this material." Your very first post on this topic was

Originally Posted by sirbruce

No thanks. Disabled people have no more right to my commercially written words than someone who can't read English. Should non-English speakers be entitled to free copies of my work? What about the rights of the poor who can't afford it? Etc.

This wasn't exactly an arguement for a "better ways to provide for universal access by the visually impaired" but came off to some as "screw the blind and let them pay like everyone else". Several posters had the impression you were being trollish and just trying to start an arguement, so there may be a reason for the hostility you feel.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Several posters had the impression you were being trollish and just trying to start an arguement, so there may be a reason for the hostility you feel.

I haven't seen anything to change that impression.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Daithi

This wasn't exactly an arguement for a "better ways to provide for universal access by the visually impaired" but came off to some as "screw the blind and let them pay like everyone else". Several posters had the impression you were being trollish and just trying to start an arguement, so there may be a reason for the hostility you feel.

But I had actually *looked at the treaty*, and was commenting specifically on the faults of the proposed language. The fact other people assumed my comments meant "screw the blind" because they knew nothing of the language of the treaty and just assumed it was perfectly agreeable is not MY fault, now is it?

But yes, I do think blind people should pay for novels, just as they pay for most everything else. I would happily see my work provided to the blind in acceptable formats at an acceptable rate. I'm not so happy seeing third parties taking my work and giving it away to the blind for free even if I provide such a format, or because they think it costs too much, etc. That's a pretty far cry from "screw the blind".

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I'm sorry, but what further legal erosion are you talking about exactly?
The fact that copyright now expires after about one-and-a-half to two centuries, and will probably be extended further once mickey mouse ages more?

No, the proposal that certain people beyond what we've already granted should be allowed to freely violate that copyright.

I've come out against the fact that copyrights are too long in the US.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

No, it's not quite that easy. The proving starts with the first assertion, not with the first assertion after someone mentions "burden of proof".

Wow, so if I mentioned "burden of proof" in my first post, you'd be all defensive and having to back up your points and stuff?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I am? Amazing. And I thought I mentioned "legal/Medical" in my last post. Must be the linguistic barrier we are experiencing, with me not being an American.

Must be.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

The fact other people assumed my comments meant "screw the blind" because they knew nothing of the language of the treaty and just assumed it was perfectly agreeable is not MY fault, now is it?

You keep assuming that people don't agree with you because they either don't understand you or that they didn't read the treaty. What you fail to realize is that people are capable of understanding your points and understanding the treaty, they just think you're wrong.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You keep assuming that people don't agree with you because they either don't understand you or that they didn't read the treaty. What you fail to realize is that people are capable of understanding your points and understanding the treaty, they just think you're wrong.

Yes, that's possible, but the overwhelming majority early on believed that the provisions only applied if the book was not made available in accessible formats, or that price was not an issue, or that it could not be extended beyond the visually impaired, and so on. Some may still believe it given the nature of the arguments constantly reiterated here.

Regardless, thinking someone is wrong because they believe if you make the books available in visually impaired formats, other people shouldn't be allowed to give away free copies to the visually impaired anyway, is a far cry from thinking that someone's belief is morally equivalent to "screw the blind".

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You keep assuming that people don't agree with you because they either don't understand you or that they didn't read the treaty. What you fail to realize is that people are capable of understanding your points and understanding the treaty, they just think you're wrong.

QFT

PS: This topic has been successfully dragged down - it's degenerated into troll-fighting so let's stop feeding the troll, people.

[JasonB]

I'm going to go back to the original point and weigh in as agreeing with sirbruce and rrburton.

I don't see the validity of forcing material to be available in a format for the blind when it is not similarly forced to be available for groups of other people. The language analogy was a good one and I think it was dismissed too quickly.

The main dismissal of the comparison seems to have been this:

Originally Posted by Daithi

The blind and non-English speakers are most definately *NOT* at the same level of disadvantage. First, as you yourself pointed out, a non-English speaker can learn the English language. A blind person cannot learn to see.

They may not be at the same conceptual level of disadvantage, but they are at the same functional level of disadvantage. Neither can read the book because neither can understand it. True, if you can actually read you can teach yourself English. But that's hardly a practical solution. Why not just have somebody else read it to you? That would apply equally to both a non-English reader and somebody who's blind and would be the more obvious answer.

The idea of market forces is that you have an audience and goods produced to meet that audience and its need. Rarely is anything ever done just because it's the right thing to do; it's done because there's money to be made by doing it in that way. Nobody is preventing publishers from publishing books in a form that the blind can read, just like they aren't preventing them from publishing in one language or another. They simply choose not to do so. Moreover, it's not the case that things are never published in a format that the blind can't read - braille books do exist, and more are published each day. It's just that they're a very small subset of the print books that are published.

If we force every book publisher to publish in braille in addition to text, then we should similarly be forcing every studio to create DVDs that come with descriptive audio. It may be a good thing, but I don't think it should be a necessary and enforced thing.

Plus, once we insist on something like this being done for the blind - the slippery slope opens up for insisting on things for a long list of other people with different disabilities. (Even if we ignore, for the moment, all of the people who only speak Lithuanian and can't read the latest thriller in either English or braille.) What about those with severe dyslexia or other learning disabilities who simply can't read / understand properly no matter how much time they spend on normal language? Let's say that words could be reversed or rearranged in some way that they could then understand in their own way. Should we be forced to provide those translations? How about people who are missing limbs and are unable to push buttons to turn pages? Should there be a requirement that all books, electronic or otherwise, come with some kind of interface that will allow pages to be turned via eye movement?

I can understand the sentiment behind wanting to make books accessible to everyone, but I think that there is some kind of logical flaw in enforcing it in this situation. It seems to me that one of the hurdles for sight-impaired media simply has to do with the cost of production and the cost / benefit to publishers. Surely, we'd be better off with government offering financial incentives and tax breaks for such media - thereby allowing the market place to function in an organic fashion but still promote better selection to the disadvantaged.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Regardless, thinking someone is wrong because they believe if you make the books available in visually impaired formats, other people shouldn't be allowed to give away free copies to the visually impaired anyway, is a far cry from thinking that someone's belief is morally equivalent to "screw the blind".

I'm sorry. I must have misread this then

Originally Posted by sirbruce

No thanks. Disabled people have no more right to my commercially written words than someone who can't read English. .

I thought that was exactly what you were saying

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JasonB

I'm going to go back to the original point and weigh in as agreeing with sirbruce and rrburton.

I don't see the validity of forcing material to be available in a format for the blind when it is not similarly forced to be available for groups of other people. The language analogy was a good one and I think it was dismissed too quickly.

The US (and other countries) already have exceptions to copyright that essentially do this.

Since we're going back to the original story, what this story is about is the WIPO receiving a proposal for a treaty to add similar exceptions worldwide. The US (and other countries) were attempting to block WIPO from even discussing the proposed treaty.

That's a different issue from any personal beliefs we have of whether things like the disabilities act are a good idea, or whether being blind is of a similar nature to being poor or not speaking English (which I find to be rediculous).