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

[Shaggy]

BTW, the original article has since been updated to state that the attempt by some countries to block discussion of the proposed treaty has failed, and it was placed back on the agenda for the next meeting of WIPO.

[JasonB]

Well. Whether I agree with any given proposal or not, I certainly don't agree that discussion of it should be prevented.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JasonB

Well. Whether I agree with any given proposal or not, I certainly don't agree that discussion of it should be prevented.

Yeah, that's what was really disturbing about the article (not necessarily the details in the proposed treaty). Unfortunately, this discussion got sidetracked with a (alleged) trolling, and the point of the original article was never really talked about.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

I'm sorry. I must have misread this then

Yes, you did.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

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.

I would object to the exceptions being called "similar". They go far beyond the current exceptions, to a point that I find objectionable.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The US (and other countries) were attempting to block WIPO from even discussing the proposed treaty.

That's not surprising when any opposition to the specifics of the treaty is met with distortions and allegations of "screw the blind", as witnessed here. Do you really think it would play much differently in the media? Indeed, the whole tone of the original article was that the US et. al. were on the morally wrong side of this issue. Their side is a "rogue's gallery" who are "opposing the rights of blind people", presupposing all of the provisions the treaty is proposing are in fact existing moral rights of blind people.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Indeed, the whole tone of the original article was that the US et. al. were on the morally wrong side of this issue.

How is attempting to block even a discussion of the treaty on the right side?

presupposing all of the provisions the treaty is proposing are in fact existing moral rights of blind people.

Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read the article.

[Modern Bear]

Having read the proposal it looks like parts a and b are fine, but after that it gets murky. The way it is worded seems to open it up for possible abuse. It seems that what is defined as "reasonably available" could be interpreted in any manner of ways depending on who is interpreting it. This is why there is opposition to it. They should rewrite the proposal and tighten up the language so it has it's desired result but doesn't leave it open for abuse.

If a publisher does make versions of books available for the disabled I think it would be wrong for some other entity to copy that work and undercut their price claiming that it's not "reasonably available" as their reason for doing it. That would take away earnings from the publisher after they did put money into developing those books for the disabled, which should be encouraged more since it isn't done enough as it is.

Of course if a publisher does not make it available for the disabled at all than that publisher is out nothing anyway if someone else does and sells it. In that case they are just providing a service the publisher is not willing to do. I have no problem with that because everyone wins. The disabled get their books. The entity providing it gets some money, or karma if they did it for free. The original publisher... well I guess they didn't have to spend any money developing alternative versions of the book but really it would be nice if more did instead of just ignoring that segment of the market.

As for those that would not be able to afford disabled friendly versions of books at the publisher's asking price if the publisher is willing to provide that service, that's where charities or government organizations should step in and help those disabled pay for them, or provide them for free. Then the publisher still gets paid and the disabled still get their books.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

How is attempting to block even a discussion of the treaty on the right side?

If anyone who opposes it is villified, then even discussing it can be a negative if you oppose it. I thought I was clear on that point.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read the article.

I did. I quoted straight from the article that those against it were "opposing the rights of blind people". How is that not what I just said was being presupposed?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Modern Bear

As for those that would not be able to afford disabled friendly versions of books at the publisher's asking price if the publisher is willing to provide that service, that's where charities or government organizations should step in and help those disabled pay for them, or provide them for free. Then the publisher still gets paid and the disabled still get their books.

Very reasonable, Bear.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Modern Bear

As for those that would not be able to afford disabled friendly versions of books at the publisher's asking price if the publisher is willing to provide that service, that's where charities or government organizations should step in and help those disabled pay for them, or provide them for free. Then the publisher still gets paid and the disabled still get their books.

I agree that a disability does not give someone a right to "free" or "cheaper" books than anyone else; it is not the publisher's "fault" that the person has that disability. Equally, however, disabled people should not have to pay more than anyone else for an "accessible" version of the book.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If anyone who opposes it is villified, then even discussing it can be a negative if you oppose it. I thought I was clear on that point.

They're not being vilified because they oppose it, or because they oppose specific exceptions.

They're being vilified because they were attempting to block any discussion of it and their reasoning for doing so was pretty much read verbatim straight from corporate lobbyists.

If some countries don't like the wording or think that specific exceptions in the proposed treaty go too far, then fine. That's what the discussion is for. They can recommend alternatives or propose removing certain elements. But completely refusing to even discuss the idea of an international treaty to put forth common exceptions (that many countries already have existing versions of) can certainly be interpreted as "opposing protection for...". This isn't about refusing to negotiate on certain clauses, this is about refusing to even entertain the idea of a treaty.

Your theory that they didn't want to discuss a treaty at a UN WIPO meeting because they were worried about bad publicity is laughable. I'm sure if you looked at who was behind their attempt to block the discussion, you can come up with a more intelligent reason for why they did so.