Either you didn’t read the proposed changes–or you’re just outright spreading FUD.

None of the more troubling proposed changes have anything to do about limiting access to just the disabled–or defining disability. They’re about giving some undefined, nebulous “someone” to much power over the exception process.

And it is just outright FUD claiming that “Mike and his grifter and pirate pals” are wanting this treaty just so they can pirate–anyone that wants to pirate something already is.

Are people abusing disability laws? Sure they are. How big of a percentage are? Pretty low. What percentage are doing it over something as trivial as getting a parking space? Microscopic. What percentage would abuse this treaty? Most likely microscopic, I doubt most people would consider a book or a movie reformatted for the use of the blind and deaf to be a substitute for the original (I don’t know about you, but I can’t read braille, and a movie with extra audio for the blind would be too annoying).

Plus, how did this become an argument about piracy? There’s nothing in this treaty that says anything created for the disabled has to be free–it just says it has to be made by an “authorized entity”, described here:

[Authorized entity means an entity that is authorized or recognized by the government to provide education, instructional training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiary persons on a non-profit basis. It also includes a government institution or non-profit organization that provides the same services to beneficiary persons as one of its primary activities or institutional obligations.]

[establishes and follows] [may maintain] its own rules and procedures
i) to establish that the persons it serves are beneficiary persons;
ii) to limit to beneficiary persons and/or authorized entities its distribution and making available of accessible format copies;
iii) to discourage the reproduction, distribution and making available of unauthorized copies [including by informing authorized entities and beneficiary persons that any abuse will lead to stopping the supply of accessible format copies]; and
iv) to maintain reasonable care in, and records of, its handling of copies of works, while respecting the privacy of beneficiary persons in accordance with Article H; in the case of an authorized entity that serves a rural or small population and does not distribute accessible format copies in electronic form for whom record keeping would constitute an undue burden such record keeping may be appropriately adjusted.
[v) An authorized entity carrying out cross-border exchanges of accessible format copies establishes and follows rules and procedures which enable the provision of anonymous and aggregated data relating to such exchanges for the evaluation, when appropriate, of their volume and periodicity.] [This provision shall not apply to developing and least developed countries, nor to governmental authorized entities, libraries or educational institutions.]]

In the case of an authorized entity that engages only in activities under Article[s] [C] [C and E], [as regards physical copies] items iii to v? iv to v? shall be discretionary.

Nothing about anyone getting anything for free there, plus all kinds of things about not redistributing works obtained under this treaty.

And here’s the part defining “disability”:

ARTICLE B
BENEFICIARY PERSONS

A beneficiary person is a person who

(a) is blind

(b) has a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability which cannot be improved to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or

(c) is otherwise unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading,

regardless of any other disabilities.

Not much grounds for abuse there. Except for fraud, which is already illegal.

Exceptions are necessary. You use them every day (without them you could get sued for defamation for just about every post you make). So, they’re only good when they benefit you, but not when they benefit someone else?

The self-contradictions some people can maintain just amaze me. Did you have to take class to be able to do that? Or were you just born that way?