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

[sirbruce]

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. So, bottom line, I'm in favor of the exemption (even if it means blind people get sirbruce's work for free).

Contrast with:

The intent of this law is to insure that non-English speakers have access to the same works as the Englisth speakers. If copyright laws didn't provide for this exemption 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 non-English speakers get Harlan Ellison's work for free).

OR

The intent of this law is to insure that the poor have access to the same works as the rich. If copyright laws didn't provide for this exemption 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 poor people get Harlan Ellison's work for free).

If you support the line of reasoning for the blind and not for others, you must explain why.

[Daithi]

I support handicap parking spaces, but I don't support special parking spaces for women with children, or special parking for fat people. I recognize that negotiating a parking lot with small children can be difficult. I recognize walking long distances can be tiring for the overweight. However, neither of these examples rise to the same level as asking someone with emphysema to walk across a parking lot. The same reasoning applies to your examples. Being poor or a non-English speaker doesn't rise to the same level of disadvantage as being blind.

[Sweetpea]

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, 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.

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.

He does have a point there.

Let's say, sirbruce makes a book, sells it in one format only for $10. That foundation makes that large format, which sirbruce didn't want to do, as he knew other people would anyway. Why would that foundation have to profit by it?

Actually, 4b is already legal here, for every person. As long as you use the copy for personal use, don't give it away, you can make as many copies you want.

I think that's one thing that should be implicity added to the copyright laws at that makes perfect sense. The problem is solved then too. Somebody buys the book, can't read it because of dissability, goes to that Foundation (which I assume is one for people with dissabilities?), asks them to make it into a format so they can read it and they're off, with a legal copy of the bought they just bought. No need to distribute it further for a lower price.

I still don't see why people with a dissability need a lower price on the written word than the people without a dissability.

The only real thing that needs to be changed, is making the format shifting legal (and DRM abbolished, naturally...)

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Being poor or a non-English speaker doesn't rise to the same level of disadvantage as being blind.

In the case of walking a parking lot, no. But in the case of reading a book that's only in English, the non-English speaker is at *exactly* the same level of disadvantage as the blind with respect to that book. Why not pass a law to make it legal to translate books that the publisher or author won't translate? That's essentially what the blind provision is; translation to audible, braille, large format, or equivalent "language" that they can read.

I suppose the non-English speaker could eventually learn English if they really wanted to. What if they are elderly and learning a new language would be prohibitive for them in terms of time and effort?

What if I write my book in a complex code that only people with 20 years of cryptoanalysis can possibly decipher? Or a dead language only a few experts in the world know? Should not everyone else be entitled to equal accessibility to that work?

[sirbruce]

In the proposal you also have the problem of multiple avenues of distribution.

Let's say I *want* to publish the book for the blind. My publisher spends a lot of money to offer the translation, and we sell it at a given price point in order to recoup costs.

EVEN IF I OFFER AN ACCESSIBLE WORK, the proposal still makes it legal for someone else to make a version of my work more accessible, so long as it's only to the blind. So they can turn around and offer it, for free, or even make money off it via rental. It cuts any sales I make in half, or even undercuts them completely. Why would a blind person buy my braille version, when they can get it cheaper or for free from a non-profit?

The proposed law actually *disincentivizes the publisher* from making works accessible. Why should he risk capital to do so, when someone else can swoop in and scoop up the profits for almost nothing? Better to just not make the effort and let the charity organizations make it available since they now have every right to do so.

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the disabled and the disadvantaged, but bad law is bad law.

[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. This is a huge difference -- fat man walking across a parking lot huge.

However, in terms of reading a book there is another difference between a non-English speaker and the blind. There is a financial incentive to produce books for non-English speakers. Over a billion people speak Chinese so this is a huge market that offers authors and publishers the promise of significant financial gain. The market of books for the blind on the other hand is not so lucrative. In fact, producing books for the blind is almost certainly a money losing prospect, and producing these books is almost always an act of charity, which is kind of the whole point of the exemption.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

The proposed law actually *disincentivizes the publisher* from making works accessible. Why should he risk capital to do so, when someone else can swoop in and scoop up the profits for almost nothing? Better to just not make the effort and let the charity organizations make it available since they now have every right to do so.

And yet many publishers still publish public domain works, despite the fact that anyone can make another version and undercut their price, or give them away for free.

If publishers think there's a market for large-print or audiobook versions, they'll publish. This law encourages the development of those editions even if the contracted publisher doesn't think the market is worth developing.

[sirbruce]

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.

I already pointed out examples where this logic does not work, which you did not respond to.

Originally Posted by Daithi

However, in terms of reading a book there is another difference between a non-English speaker and the blind. There is a financial incentive to produce books for non-English speakers.

Depends on the language. What about something suitably obscure? And there's only a financial incentive as long as it's not undercut by a law that says they should have them for free.

Originally Posted by Daithi

In fact, producing books for the blind is almost certainly a money losing prospect, and producing these books is almost always an act of charity, which is kind of the whole point of the exemption.

Again, the proposed treaty would completely force it to be so. It does not have to be so now.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And yet many publishers still publish public domain works, despite the fact that anyone can make another version and undercut their price, or give them away for free.

This is primarily only for "popular" works in the public domain, precisely because demand is so high. Few publishers publish obscure works that are in the public domain unless those works are desired highly by a select group willing to pay a high price and they can corner the market with their own particular version, at least for a while. In any case, many of these "public domain" books have value-add that is unique to each publisher (commentary and such); these additions are not allowed in the visually disabled works we're discussing.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If publishers think there's a market for large-print or audiobook versions, they'll publish. This law encourages the development of those editions even if the contracted publisher doesn't think the market is worth developing.

Actually, as I pointed out, the proposed law specifically discourages development of those editions because others can copy said versions and redistribute them for free.

[kacir]

Thank you sirbruce for keeping this thread alive. This way many people learn about this and can draw their own conclusions.

[sirbruce]

I agree it's a tricky issue, and there's more than one way to look at it. But I think people should resist the impulse that any law that's proposed to help the disabled is de facto a good law. Or perhaps I should say de jure? In any case, there are reasons for opposing it.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I agree it's a tricky issue, and there's more than one way to look at it. But I think people should resist the impulse that any law that's proposed to help the disabled is de facto a good law. Or perhaps I should say de jure? In any case, there are reasons for opposing it.

It's really not that tricky of an issue. The blind and handicapped deserve special consideration from the stand point of social justice and compasion. Supporting this exemption is a no brainer IMHO.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I agree it's a tricky issue, and there's more than one way to look at it. But I think people should resist the impulse that any law that's proposed to help the disabled is de facto a good law. Or perhaps I should say de jure? In any case, there are reasons for opposing it.

Is there a better alternative?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is there a better alternative?

The basis of that law is sound. If the version you require isn't available, it should be made available, one way or another. What I wrote might be a better solution: you buy the book and have it transformed into something you can use. That way, the author gets his share (as you will have bought the book), and you will have your useable copy. The worst part, imo, in that "law", is the part that re-selling copies of books would be permitted. I think that should never, ever, ever be allowed. Making copies for own use, yes, format shifting for own use, yes, but selling, never.

[scrabble]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

A braille, audio, large format, etc. version of the book may be more expensive to produce than a print version.

The Kindle's read-aloud technology allowed blind people to listen to ebooks at no extra cost (obviously they owned the ebook in the first place). It may not have been high quality reading, but it was better than nothing. The writer got access to a larger market and didn't have to pay a cent for it.

As I understand it, some publishers fought against that on the basis that, rather than simply being an accessibility technology, any book that was read-aloud magically turned into an audio book. Since that would normally qualify as a separate product, blind people should be forced to pay for the audio book instead (and if that doesn't exist, too bad).

Now to me that makes about as much sense as saying that reading with glasses magically turns the book into a large print edition, and so people with glasses should be forced to buy the large print book instead.

Or that listening to music with a hearing aid magically turns it into the extra loud edition (which would naturally be extra expensive). Just so that recording artists can also cash in on this gimmick.

Oh, and by the way, if you picture the characters in your head, you're illegally infringing on the movie rights.

Maybe this new law goes too far the other way, but that's probably because people tend to get angry when someone tramples on the disabled in a callous quest for profits. The publishers managed to piss of everyone with the slightest sense of decency, and now they're reaping the whirlwind.