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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I'm afraid you need to read the proposal. Here's the a relevant portion:



In other words, the visually disadvantaged can get it for free. Everyone else will have to renumerate the copyright owners on "adequate" terms not determined by the copyright owner.

So, for example, if I sell my book for $10, and the Virginia M. Woolf foundation makes a large-format version of that book without my authorization, they can sell or rent it to everyone, at the lower price they choose, for their profit, on indeterminate renumeration terms that are going to be set by the government, not by my contract.

Ahem... Not everyone. Only those with visual impairment. That is explicitly stated in the text. If said people can't use your product anyway as is, what have you lost? People don't buy things they can't use...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

So, for example, if I sell my book for $10, and the Virginia M. Woolf foundation makes a large-format version of that book without my authorization, they can sell or rent it to everyone

It doesn't say they can sell or rent it to everyone, only the visually impaired.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If said people can't use your product anyway as is, what have you lost?

Excellent point. If the copyright holder is not offering an accessible format, then those people wouldn't be buying it anyway. So making an exception that an authorized agent can make it available to the disabled isn't causing any harm to the copyright holder. However, it does allow the disabled access to content that they are currently being denied.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Your link isn't working now (goes to a different page instead of bringing up the document), so I can't quote it directly.

It's in the list from the first link. But I added a link to it directly.

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.../sccr_18_5.doc

Originally Posted by Shaggy

But you missed the part in there where it said that the exceptions DO NOT APPLY if the work is originally available in an accessible format.

No, that only applies to 4(c)3. Under 4(c)2, they can rent or give these works to the visually impaired without compensation. Furthermore, "accessible format" includes the notion of PRICE; if it's not cheaper for the blind person, then it may not be considered accessible here. If Hugo Chavez decides he doesn't like my Capitalist Imperial Pricing Scheme, then he can give it away to everyone for free.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Only if you refuse to offer one yourself. As long as you make a version available that meets the requirements for being accessible to the disabled, then you retain control and profits.

Nope, read it again.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It doesn't say they can sell or rent it to everyone, only the visually impaired.

You're misreading it. 4(c).1 says for-profit entities can engage in regular for-profit exempted reproduction (fair use, etc.). 4(c).2 says that regardless of whether or not it's in "accessible format", they can reproduce it for rental or free so long as it's ONLY to the visually impaired. 4(c).3 says that if it's not in an "accessible format", they can reproduce a rental or free version with compensation to the author. This third option does NOT require the "accessible format" they provide be accessibly ONLY by the visually impaired. This is exactly what Virginia M. Woolf does with large-print ebooks; anyone can download them.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Excellent point. If the copyright holder is not offering an accessible format, then those people wouldn't be buying it anyway. So making an exception that an authorized agent can make it available to the disabled isn't causing any harm to the copyright holder. However, it does allow the disabled access to content that they are currently being denied.

Again, stop guessing at what this thing says and READ THE TEXT. My book may be considered unaccessible SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PRICE IS TOO HIGH.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

You're misreading it. 4(c).1 says for-profit entities can engage in regular for-profit exempted reproduction (fair use, etc.). 4(c).2 says that regardless of whether or not it's in "accessible format", they can reproduce it for rental or free so long as it's ONLY to the visually impaired. 4(c).3 says that if it's not in an "accessible format", they can reproduce a rental or free version with compensation to the author. This third option does NOT require the "accessible format" they provide be accessibly ONLY by the visually impaired. This is exactly what Virginia M. Woolf does with large-print ebooks; anyone can download them.

Actually, let me back off from that slighty; 4(a) says that the right is to "supply that accessible format, or copies of that format, to a visually impaired person by any means". I would still maintain that this does not require the person to prove they are visually impaired; I could be acquiring the copy FOR a visually impaired person, for example. Certainly supplying via another purchaser is one of "any means".

[sirbruce]

Let me also point out:

(b) Contracting Parties shall extend the provisions of this Treaty to persons with any other disability who, due to that disability, need an accessible format of a type that could be made under Article 4 in order to access a copyright work to substantially the same degree as a person without a disability.

Again, where does it end? If my book is available only in English, someone who only speaks Spanish may just as well be blind in terms of accessibility. Or if they are poor, and my book is too expensive?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Again, stop guessing at what this thing says and READ THE TEXT. My book may be considered unaccessible SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PRICE IS TOO HIGH.

The price being too high is not just a subjective decision. The proposal lists specific guidelines, including such things as a comparable price to the "regular" format of the book.

If you're hoping to create a disabled accessible format and then rip people off by charging a lot more for it, then you would get caught by this exception. Then again, I'm not sure that position will get you much sympathy. Trying to take advantage of the disabled in order to increase your profits isn't exactly high moral ground to argue from.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Let me also point out:


Again, where does it end? If my book is available only in English, someone who only speaks Spanish may just as well be blind in terms of accessibility. Or if they are poor, and my book is too expensive?

Now you're just getting silly.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The price being too high is not just a subjective decision. The proposal lists specific guidelines, including such things as a comparable price to the "regular" format of the book.

Again, it's not so simple. Back to the text:

1. for developed economies, the work must be accessible and available at a similar or lower price than the price of the work available to persons who are not visually impaired; and


2. for developing countries, the work must be accessible and available at prices that are affordable, taking into account disparities of incomes for persons who are visually impaired.

A braille, audio, large format, etc. version of the book may be more expensive to produce than a print version. Yet I'm not allowed to charge a higher price for it. And that only applies to a few developed countries; in a poor developing country they can set a price that's virtually zero.

Furthermore, this ONLY applies to section 4(c).3. Under 4(c)2., these works may be sold or rented to the visually impaired on a non-profit basis regardless if the work is accessible already. 4(c).3. only comes into it if they want to make money doing so.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Now you're just getting silly.

Not at all. Can't you read the very provision to extending provisions that I quoted?

[Daithi]

The intent of this law is to insure that the visually impaired have access to the same works as the non-visually impaired. If copyright laws didn't provide for this excemption it would result in a lot of material simply being unavailable to these individuals. So, bottom line, I'm in favor of the exemption (even if it means blind people get sirbruce's work for free).

It would be one thing if the U.S. government's position was to tighten up the language of the exemption, but it appears from the article that they are trying to elliminate the exemption altogether. Shame.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

The intent of this law is to insure that the visually impaired have access to the same works as the non-visually impaired. If copyright laws didn't provide for this excemption it would result in a lot of material simply being unavailable to these individuals.

Indeed. Apparently though, some people feel that their "right" to a profit justifies discrimination. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[PKFFW]

Interesting that one who advocates "file-sharing" as being right and just and entirely the fault of the money hungry authors and publishers should now argue that blind people shouldn't be allowed to get works under copyright for free.