Anna ([info]troubleinchina) wrote,
@ 2009-05-29 10:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood:enraged
Entry tags:angry for a reason, disabled people don't exist, spread the word

Spread the Word; Contact your Representatives
USA, Canada and the EU attempt to kill treaty to protect blind people's access to written material

This will also affect Deaf people, and people with other reading-related difficulties.

At issue is a treaty to protect the rights of blind people and people with other disabilities that affect reading (people with dyslexia, people who are paralyzed or lack arms or hands for turning pages), introduced by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay. This should be a slam dunk: who wouldn't want a harmonized system of copyright exceptions that ensure that it's possible for disabled people to get access to the written word?

The USA, that's who. The Obama administration's negotiators have joined with a rogue's gallery of rich country trade representatives to oppose protection for blind people. Other nations and regions opposing the rights of blind people include Canada and the EU.

Also opposing rights for disabled people: Australia, New Zealand, the Vatican and Norway.


[More details at BoingBoing

The proposal for a treaty is supported by a large number of civil society NGOs, the World Blind Union, the National Federation of the Blind in the US, the International DAISY Consortium, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), Bookshare.Org, and groups representing persons with reading disabilities all around the world.

The main aim of the treaty is to allow the cross-border import and export of digital copies of books and other copyrighted works in formats that are accessible to persons who are blind, visually impaired, dyslexic or have other reading disabilities, using special devices that present text as refreshable braille, computer generated text to speech, or large type. These works, which are expensive to make, are typically created under national exceptions to copyright law that are specifically written to benefit persons with disabilities.

The number of accessible works is very small everywhere, relative to what "sighted" persons can read. However, in developing countries, the collections are super small, and even in the USA, access to works in languages other than English is practically non-existent.

Under the current international legal regime, there is almost no sharing of these works across borders. The treaty would change that, vastly expanding the availability of works to all persons who are blind or have other reading disabilities.


Read more at the Huffington Post

Spread the world. Contact your elected representatives, cross post it, twitter it, put it on Facebook. They don't want us to do this. Let's make it impossible for them to ignore the needs and demands of people with disabilities, even if your country supports this treat.

TwitterFeed: #sccr18

[via [info] - personalpeaseblossom



(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]unusualmusic
2009-05-29 02:29 pm UTC (link)
Jeusus Christ WHAT????????????????

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2009-05-29 02:38 pm UTC (link)
Well, you know, it's not like PWD should be able to read.

*headdesk*

Contact Info for people on the UN panel-thing

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]capriuni
2009-05-31 05:01 am UTC (link)
*checks the info for the United States*

So, if I were to compose a snail mail letter who would actually be voting, would I address it to the Restister of Copyrights for the Library of Congress, or to the Undersecretary and Acting Director (same guy) for the trademarks and patents office? I can't find any other names for specific people.

And any idea when this treaty will progress to the next round? Will that be next year? I can't seem to find that info in the calender of upcoming events... (though I'd love to be a fly on the wall for the:

Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore

Though the idea of folklore traditional knowledge being lumped together with genetic resources kind of creeps me out...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ldragoon
2009-05-29 03:34 pm UTC (link)
The number of accessible works is very small everywhere, relative to what "sighted" persons can read. However, in developing countries, the collections are super small, and even in the USA, access to works in languages other than English is practically non-existent.

OK, that's just not fair. Anything I can access to read, a blind/disabled person should be able to access and read. >:(

(Reply to this)


[info]capriuni
2009-05-29 05:43 pm UTC (link)
Damn it. I wanted to spend most of today (at least, if not all of it) Anger-Free. I'm tired of being angry.

Waah.

I guess this weekend will be spent composing letters... *Sigh*

(Reply to this)


[info]particle_person
2009-05-29 07:00 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I'm kind of puzzled as to why the US is against this. (And Canada too, I guess.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]capriuni
2009-05-29 08:19 pm UTC (link)
I can make a (rather cynical) guess about the U.S.: that we've been more focused on promoting corporate culture than democratic culture for at least a generation, now.

But the Vatican?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]particle_person
2009-05-29 08:42 pm UTC (link)
Well, less cynically, I'm wondering if this proposal has some kind of defect or loophole in it that makes it a bad idea. Maybe the Obama administration (and all these other countries and the Vatican) simply want to substitute a better proposal. Frequently politicians will vote against something until they get some key provision changed, even if they're in favor of the general idea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]capriuni
2009-05-29 10:53 pm UTC (link)
That's true. That might be why there are objections, but considering how stingy and frothy-at-the-mouth some big publishers have gotten over sharing work over the Internet, part of me is fearing the worst.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Yay! (for now -- the fight ain't over, yet)
[info]capriuni
2009-05-29 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Here's a reply thread from my post about this (Started by [info]alto2): The blind-rights treaty survived and will be on the agenda for the next WIPO meeting.

(contains a link to a full report on what happened, today)

(Reply to this)


[info]spacelem
2009-05-30 01:29 pm UTC (link)
I'm quite concerned about the "'paradigm shift,' where treaties would protect consumer interests, rather than expand rights for copyright owners" part too, since that's the issue here.

The blind and disabled are just getting caught in the crossfire.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]spacelem
2009-05-30 01:58 pm UTC (link)
Heaven forbid that blind people should have the right to read content without having to pay extra for the privilege of converting it into a usable format.

The content providers hate extending rights to consumers (even in this sort of situation, where they should be given by default), but they normally get away with it. However this time it seems they've really offended too many people to get away with it.

So I'm glad this happened (since it has resulted in a positive change for consumers). I hope the public are offended more easily in the future.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]annaham
2009-05-31 06:53 pm UTC (link)
I am posting a link to this at my public blog.

(Reply to this)


[info]queenlyzard
2009-06-02 11:49 pm UTC (link)
WHAT?!?! This sucks. And the U.S. used to be so good about this kind of thing, too...

(Reply to this)


(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…