Techdirt. Stories filed under "blind"

Some EU Nations Still Haven't Implemented The 2013 Marrakesh Treaty For The Blind

Glyn Moody — Wed, 5 Dec 2018 19:36:47 PST

The annals of copyright are littered with acts of extraordinary stupidity and selfishness on the part of the publishers, recording industry and film studios. But few can match the refusal by the publishing industry to make it easier for the blind to gain access to reading material that would otherwise be blocked by copyright laws. Indeed, the fact that it took so long for what came to be known as the Marrakesh Treaty to be adopted is a shameful testimony to the publishing industry's belief that copyright maximalism is more important than the rights of the visually impaired. As James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), wrote in 2013, when the treaty was finally adopted:

It difficult to comprehend why this treaty generated so much opposition from publishers and patent holders, and why it took five years to achieve this result. As we celebrate and savor this moment, we should thank all of those who resisted the constant calls to lower expectations and accept an outcome far less important than what was achieved today.

Even once the treaty was agreed, the publishing industry continued to fight against making it easier for the visually impaired to enjoy better access to books. In 2016, Techdirt reported that the Association of American Publishers was still lobbying to water down the US ratification package. Fortunately, as an international treaty, the Marrakesh Treaty came into force around the world anyway, despite the US foot-dragging.

Thanks to heavy lobbying by the region's publishers, the EU has been just as bad. It only formally ratified the Marrakesh Treaty in October of this year. As an article on the IPKat blog explains, the EU has the authority to sign and ratify treaties on behalf of the EU Member States, but it then requires the treaty to be implemented in national law:

In this case, the EU asked that national legislators reform their domestic copyright law by transposing the 2017/1564 Directive of 13 September 2017. The Directive requires that all necessary national measures be implemented by 12 October 2018. Not all member states complied by this deadline, whereby the EU Commission introduced infringement procedures against them for non-compliance. The list of the non-compliant countries is as follows:

Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, UK

The IPKat post points out that some of the countries listed there, such as the UK and France, have in fact introduced exceptions to copyright to enable the making of accessible copies to the visually impaired. It's still a bit of mystery why they are on the list:

At the moment, the Commission has not published details regarding the claimed non-compliance by the countries listed. We cannot assume that the non-compliance proceedings were launched because the countries failed to introduce the exceptions in full, because countries can also be sanctioned if the scope of the exception implemented is too broad, so much so that it is disproportionately harmful to the interest of rightsholders. So we will have to wait and see what part of the implementation was deemed not up to scratch by the Commission.

As that indicates, it's possible that some of the countries mentioned are being criticized for non-compliance because they were too generous to the visually impaired. If it turns out that industry lobbyists are behind this, it would be yet another astonishing demonstration of selfishness from publishers whose behavior in connection with the Marrakesh Treaty has been nothing short of disgusting.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Treaty For The Blind Comes Into Force... But US Refuses To Ratify Because Publishers Association Hates Any User Rights

Mike Masnick — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:45:09 PDT

For many, many, many, many years, we've followed the rather crazy trials and tribulations of trying to get an international treaty signed to make it easier for the blind to access copyright-covered works (basically requiring countries to allow visually-impaired accessible versions to be reproduced and distributed). This is a treaty that people have tried to get in place for years and years and years, and it was blocked again and again -- often by legacy copyright industries who flat out refuse to support any kind of agreement that could be seen as strengthening user rights, which they see (ridiculously, and incorrectly) as chipping away at copyright. Amazingly, despite a last minute push by the MPAA and the Association of American Publishers, an agreement was reached and signed in 2013, called the Marrakesh Agreement. As we noted at the time, we fully expected the legacy copyright industries to refocus their efforts on blocking ratification in the US, and that's exactly what's happened.

Hell, it took almost three years for the White House to finally send over the treaty to the Senate for ratification. That happened back in February, and they sent it together with another copyright-related treaty, the very troubling Beijing Treaty that creates an entirely new form of copyright for performers. So far, the Senate has moved on neither issue. However, to have the Marrakesh Treaty go into effect, it needed 20 countries to ratify it. And while the US has sat still, a few weeks ago, Canada became the 20th country to complete the ratification process. That means the agreement officially goes into effect on September 30th of this year. As the EFF noted:

That’s another significant step for a treaty that has already made some important breakthroughs as the first international treaty focused exclusively on the rights of users of copyrighted material. Typically, if user’s rights are considered at all, they’re relegated to a section on “limitations and exceptions” or even as non-binding introductory text. In the Marrakesh Agreement, they are front and center.

That post also noted that it should be a no brainer for the US to ratify this:

United States law is already compliant with Marrakesh, but the government has not yet ratified the agreement. To do so requires a two-thirds vote from the Senate, and then a formal ratification from the President. Even at a time when passing legislation has proven exceedingly difficult, the Marrakesh Agreement would be a relatively easy and uncontroversial way to demonstrate leadership internationally and help bring books to millions of blind, visually impaired, and print-disabled people around the world.

But why hasn't it happened? According to KEI, a group that fought hard for many years to get the agreement in place, the legacy copyright industries are working hard to block it in Congress:

The Obama Administration has asked the US Congress to ratify the treaty... but Congress has yet to act, in large part due to lobbying from the Association of American Publishers.... The AAP lobbied the Administration for changes in the U.S. ratification package, and now have asked the Congress for changes that they failed to obtain in the interagency review process. The U.S. ratification already represents compromises, including limitations of exports to countries that have ratified the treaty, a provision that currently excludes all of Africa and Europe. But the AAP continues to press for additional amendments to the ratification legislation.

This isn't a huge surprise, the AAP more or less admitted that they would refuse to support anything that established greater user rights, since that would be seen as an attack on "their rights." And, of course, the MPAA has also been working hard to block it, whining that this treaty could (gasp!) "affect other future treaties."

All of that is just shameful. This is a no-brainer situation. Helping the visually impaired get access to these works is something everyone should agree is a good thing. And yet, because they're so scared of user rights expanding in any way at all, the legacy industries have to block it.

DailyDirt: Do You See What I See?

Michael Ho — Mon, 2 May 2016 17:00:00 PDT

Blindness or visual impairment affects hundreds of millions of people around the world. Thankfully, cataract surgery and other treatments have reduced the effects of some vision problems, but unfortunately, there are still a few forms of blindness that aren't very treatable. Until someone figures out how to transplant an entire eyeball (which some doctors are actually working on), here are a few other ways that might help restore some sight.

The field of optogenetics is studying how to control the activity of nerve cells with light, but shining lights through a fiber-optic cable implanted in a brain is a bit more invasive than injecting some DNA into an eyeball. RetroSense Therapeutics is testing a way to restore some sight to blind patients -- by injecting eyes with viruses containing DNA from light-sensitive algae. We've mentioned this approach a few years ago, but it's taken some time to actually get to a trial with human subjects. [url]
Stem cells have been used to re-grow the lenses in infants who would have been blind from congenital cataracts. This procedure seems to have preferable results compared to the standard method of removing lenses and inserting artificial ones -- and if this can be done more generally, the use of stem cells in regenerative therapies could become more common. [url]
A head-mounted geomagnetic sensor (aka a compass) on a blind lab rat was connected to its brain and allowed the rat to navigate a maze nearly as well as a mouse with normal vision. This could mean "smart" canes for people that can indicate cardinal directions for the visually impaired -- or implants that could give anyone the additional sense of magnetic fields. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

DailyDirt: Everyone Has Blindspots

Michael Ho — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:00:00 PDT

A few years ago, there were some video demonstrations about perception and how when you're focused on looking for one thing, you can completely miss seeing obvious other things (like a gorilla or other monkey business). People tend to rely on vision a lot (unless you're Daredevil), but it's not always the most reliable sense.

If a person who was born blind could be given eyesight, would he/she be able to understand a visual world based on past sensory (eg. tactile) experiences? This is called Molyneux's problem, and the answer appears to be "nope" -- based on several congenitally blind patients who gained vision by various surgeries (to remove cataracts, etc). People who gain vision can subsequently learn how to map their tactile knowledge to their new eyesight, but it takes some time. [url]
Prosopagnosia is a different kind of blindness -- it's also called "face blindness" and gives people suffering from it the inability to recognize faces (and even facial expressions). This problem can also affect a person's ability to recognize animals and cars, as well as a sense of direction. This disorder might also not be that uncommon if about 2.5% of the population has it, and there's no cure, but maybe augmented reality glasses might help. [url]
Blindsight may be a strange form of consciousness? Some people with healthy eyes can be blind if their brains don't recognize visual stimuli, but visual information may still make its way into a subconscious awareness. Blindsighted patients can sometimes recognize facial expressions, and blindsight can be induced in normally-sighted volunteers using transcranial magnetic stimulation. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Years Later, White House Sends Two Copyright Treaties To Senate For Ratification: One Good, One Bad

Mike Masnick — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:38:00 PST

It's not clear why it's taken this long, but late Wednesday, the White House sent two WIPO treaties over to the Senate for ratification: The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled -- usually just called "The Marrakesh Treaty" or "The Marrakesh Treaty for the Blind" -- and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, usually just called "The Beijing Treaty." The Beijing Treaty was completed in 2012. The Marrakesh Treaty in 2013. It's not clear why it took the White House until 2016 to move on them, but such is life.

We covered both treaties while they were being negotiated. The Marrakesh Treaty is a good one -- creating a system that carves out a place in copyright laws to make it easier for the blind and visually impaired to be able to get access to books that they might not otherwise be able to access due to copyright laws. For absolutely insane reasons, this treaty, which should have been an easy one for everyone to get behind, took basically forever. The big problem? Big copyright legacy players, such as the MPAA, are scared to death of anything that moves copyright in a direction away from more control by copyright holders. They literally flipped out at the idea of any movement towards making copyright work for the public, even blind people, so that they put on a full court lobbying press that almost worked. Thankfully, it did not. Now, we'll see if they're able to do the same and block the Senate from ratifying it. But, seriously, voting against the Marrakesh Treaty is basically spitting in the face of the blind. The MPAA has done some shameful stuff for many years, but if they block this, it'll be a new low.

On the flip side, there's the awful, stupid and unnecessary Beijing Treaty. This one creates an entirely new form of intellectual property, a sort of special copyright for performers. Remember that awful 9th Circuit ruling saying an actress had a copyright interest in her performance in a movie -- the one that later (thankfully) got overturned? Part of Judge Kozinski's reasoning in his decision was the Beijing Treaty -- which, obviously, hadn't even been ratified yet. Kozinski pointing to the Beijing Treaty was ridiculous for a whole variety of reasons, but with the White House now supporting ratification, things may get even more ridiculous.

Under this treaty, Hollywood, and Hollywood actors in particular, will likely be getting their very own form of copyright, which almost certainly means that ratifying the treaty will lead to new copyright laws that are even more restrictive. It will allow performers to deny the ability to make use of any sort of performance they were in, even if they don't (as they usually don't) hold a copyright in that work. It also expands certain definitions in ways that are incompatible with US copyright law, including an explicit "making available" right (something Hollywood has wanted for ages) and broadening the concept of "moral rights" for actors. While many other countries recognize moral rights (which let copyright holders deny uses they disagree with), the US has rejected them in all but a few limited areas (mainly visual artists). And, finally, the agreement includes anti-circumvention provisions, basically expanding that already ridiculously problematic concept, so that someone breaking DRM in a way that violates someone's "performance rights," even if for otherwise legal purposes, such as commentary and criticism, may be breaking the law.

You may be wondering why Hollywood is such a big supporter of this, since it actually will hand more monopoly rights to performers -- people Hollywood has a history of screwing over. Well, it's because the agreement does allow (of course it does!) the transfer of such rights from performers to producers. So, guess what will go into every Hollywood movie and TV contract? The performers will fork over their rights, and the big Hollywood studios will end up with yet another form of monopoly control to silence people. And, with it will come all these neat little presents that Hollywood has always wanted in regular copyright law, that it might now be able to force through via the ratification of this treaty.

Both of these agreements are big deals -- but in different ways. I'm guessing the reason they're moving forward together is that it's something of a tradeoff for the MPAA. They "allow" the blind to get a few more rights, while secretly chuckling all the way to the bank as they get a massive expansion in copyright via the audiovisual treaty. Hopefully, there will actually be a big public discussion about both of these, and the Senate realizes that the Marrakesh Treaty is necessary, while the Beijing Treaty is dangerous and should not be supported.

DailyDirt: Restoring Sight

Michael Ho — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:00:00 PST

The visually impaired are a sizable group of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Some vision problems are easily corrected with glasses or contacts or various kinds of laser-based eye surgery. However, some retinal problems are much more difficult (or impossible) to treat. Retinal surgery isn't fun at all, but it can be the preferred option when given the choice between blindness and some amount of vision. Check out a few of these developments that could help people see a little bit more.

A prosthetic retina made from carbon nanotubes embedded in a flexible film could help restore vision to low-vision people someday. Researchers have tested this on lab animals and observed an ability to stimulate neurons -- which is a promising first step. [url]
A 1.55 millimeter-thick contact lens system can activate a "zoom" function when the person wearing them winks. These contacts need to be paired with smart glasses to detect the winking and provide the telescopic zoom, so it's probably not something people with 20/20 vision would want, but for people who have reduced eyesight (or folks who just like supervision gadgets), this could be really useful. [url]
Another kind of prosthetic retina has infrared-sensitive tiles (like CCD pixels) and a pair of glasses beaming a live infrared video feed onto them -- that stimulate nerves and ideally reproduce some kind of vision. Any kind of artificial retina implant needs to be unpowered (or powered wirelessly) because no one wants to have invasive eye surgery to charge batteries (or have the risk of an uncontrolled electrical discharge in an eye), so zapping retinas with infrared light seems like a reasonable solution -- especially if the pixel resolution can get close to 20/100 vision in an otherwise blind person. [url]

Bionic eyes are going to take a long time to develop, so in the meantime, check out this holiday gift guide for some awesome deals at the Techdirt deals store.

DailyDirt: Helping The Blind With Technology

Michael Ho — Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:00:00 PDT

We've seen some early-stage advances for ways that might help restore sight to people with low vision (or no vision), but it will take many more years before the clinical trials and safety approvals are complete. And not everyone will want to undergo an eye surgery to try to regain some vision, either. Fortunately, robots and wearable technology continue to improve, and these gadgets could become very useful for the blind (and the rest of us, too). Maybe we won't just see telecommuting iPads for remote workers -- but also robot assistants for casual and everyday uses, as well.

Can robots become better than guide dogs at helping the blind? Given that some of the most advanced robots still have trouble navigating the world by themselves, robots helping the blind might not happen for a long time -- but progress will undoubtedly be welcome by both the sighted and the blind. [url]
A wearable device could help blind users by providing tactile or audio feedback based on sensors embedded in a ring. A "smart ring" could have cameras and haptic feedback to allow a user to point it at something and have it read text or recognize objects.... But maybe a smart watch app might be a better way to start this kind of assistive tool? [url]
Tactile Navigation Tools is a company founded by a visually-impaired doctor, making a sensor-equipped vest and "smart cane" to help the blind. The vest and cane can work together to help a user identify dangerous obstacles -- and could also be useful for fire-fighting or military personnel to navigate in low-visibility environments. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

DailyDirt: Everything Will Recognize You

Michael Ho — Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:00:00 PDT

Cameras are everywhere. High resolution image sensors are getting really small, and they're not just in smartphones anymore. Some folks used to joke about combining cameras with all kinds of gadgets/appliances, but it's not really a joke anymore. Maybe your toaster doesn't have a camera yet, but there could be a microwave oven or refrigerator with some crazy sensors in your kitchen someday. Big Brother might be an internet of things.

A blind person's cane instantly broadcasts that the person using it is visually impaired, but a smarter version of a cane could include cameras and software to be able to identify faces from 30 feet away. Developers are already working on prototypes of a "smart cane" that includes GPS and other sensors, but it's not clear if anyone with a visual impairment would actually want to use a fancy digital cane regularly. [url]
Facial recognition software is scanning a LOT of photos nowadays and getting better (and perhaps creepier) all the time. This kind of vast collection of biometric data could make it a lot harder to remain private in the future (without wearing large brim hats or crazy makeup), but it could also make things more convenient. Have we already traded too much privacy for convenience? [url]
Iris scanners can identify people from 40 feet away, and researchers have a system that can identify a driver from an eye reflection in a side-view car mirror. Forget about license plate readers... Wear your mirrored sunglasses at all times. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Verizon Lobbyists: That Deaf, Dumb And Blind Kid Sure Could Use An Internet Fast Lane

Mike Masnick — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:48:00 PDT

As we've discussed, big broadband companies love to pretend that their anti-competitive efforts will somehow benefit less powerful groups. It's a cynical ploy that goes back to the famous statement about GM that "what's good for GM is good for the country." It is even more cynically done here, since it often involves marginalized groups, allowing the big companies to tug on heart strings of politicians, while actually making life worse for those marginalized groups. The latest in this arena, according to Mother Jones, is that Verizon lobbyists are swarming Capitol Hill telling folks in Congress that it needs to be able to offer "fast lanes" on the internet to help deaf, blind and disabled internet users. Of course, there's a big problem with this -- namely, the groups that represent those folks appear to disagree.

Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea. But groups representing disabled Americans, including the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, and the American Association of People with Disabilities are not advocating for this plan. Mark Perriello, the president and CEO of the AAPD, says that this is the "first time" he has heard "these specific talking points."

The basic argument is that if true net neutrality is allowed, then somehow, magically, Verizon and others won't be able to offer priority services that are more "necessary" for these groups. Except, of course, that's not even close to true. There are plenty of great and useful online services for these different groups, most of which are built by organizations that are not Verizon and which actually rely on the fact that they don't have to double pay the big broadband providers to make sure their offerings work properly.

Even more to the point, though, this lobbying effort makes it pretty clear that, contrary to FCC boss Tom Wheeler's own claims, Verizon (and AT&T and Comcast) recognize that the current FCC proposal will, in fact, enable "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" on the internet. It's even more obvious from the fact that AT&T has flat out come out in favor of the current proposal.

Either way, lobbyists playing cynical games to rope in groups that don't want their help in support of breaking net neutrality just shows how incredibly desperate the big broadband players are getting in trying to block any real shot at net neutrality.

Why Is Red Hat Associated With A Letter That Calls More User Rights In Copyright A Dangerous 'Contagion'?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:46:11 PDT

We covered the ridiculously long fight in WIPO to finally get a treaty that allows greater rights for the blind to get access to copyright-covered works. This fight, which went on for over a decade, finally reached mostly a conclusion in the past few months with the Marrakesh treaty. While the US avoided it at first, even it signed on at the beginning of October. Of course, the US was the main force opposing the treaty for a long time, with the main argument against it being something along the lines of "if we make any concessions towards more user rights over copyright-covered content, it will set a bad precedent." This is the mind of a maximalist: the ratchet can only work one way, and that way is for greater protection and enforcement, even if there's no evidence that it does any good (and plenty of evidence of the harm it does).

KEI points us to a just-discovered letter sent to the State Department to fight against the WIPO treaty right before it was finally agreed to, arguing (of course) that any effort to give users greater rights is a horrible precedent to set. The letter was sent from a group called the Trans-Atlantic Business Council (TCB), and was apparently pushed around DC by a lobbyist for General Electric (note taken: General Electric wants to fuck over the blind -- what, they don't buy enough lightbulbs?).

More incredible is that among the members of the TCB is... Red Hat. If ever there were a company that should be in strong favor of more user rights and against maximalism, it's Red Hat. One hopes that the company doesn't approve of this letter being sent in its name. Similarly, IBM is on the list, and it's a company that relies tremendously on open source software. Does IBM want to go down as a copyright maximalist with no concern for the blind? If not, it might want to reconsider its membership in such an organization.

The letter itself really is incredible in the ignorance it pushes, definitely fitting into the category described above:

As currently drafted, the VIP Treaty would set a negative precedent, reversing years of joint U.S. and EU efforts to prevent the erosion of global Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and undermining the U.S. and EU negotiating positions in a range of other global IPR and trade negotiations.

And here's the really incredible part, which likens rights for the public to a disease:

Agreement of the VIP Treaty on the basis of this text (or anything approximating it) could negatively affect U.S. and EU IP-related negotiating positions across global forums for years to come. The risk of contagion is not limited to copyright issues alone, but spans the entire range of IPR issues, including also patents, trade secrets, and trademarks. U.S. and EU positions in the ongoing debates at WIPO, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNTCCC)--where IPR issues have been a politically divise issue for years--and the World Health Organization (WHO) could certainly be undermined.

The idea that more user rights is a "contagion" and might harm other agreements is, fundamentally, ridiculous.

One hopes that Red Hat will distance itself from such ridiculous language, which appears to go very much against the company's stated position on both copyright and patents.

US Didn't Sign The WIPO Treaty For The Blind

Mike Masnick — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:22:46 PDT

We were happy to see that the WIPO treaty for the visually impaired was finally completed and signed following the negotiations in Marrakech, where the MPAA did everything it could to try to kill or water down the agreement, with the US negotiating delegation acting as the MPAA's happy lap dogs. So, I guess it shouldn't be much of a surprise to see that while 51 countries signed the agreement in Marrakech, the United States was not among them.

Now, you can argue that the US should have time to look over the agreement, or maybe run it through Congress first -- but, of course, when it comes to agreements that simply expand copyright, such as ACTA, the US stepped right up to sign right away, without having any open discussion or asking Congress to approve it. Furthermore, merely signing the document is different from ratifying it, so the US could have signed the document, and decided whether to fully ratify it later if it was really concerned. But, instead, the US simply decided not to sign at all, even as other countries decided to do so.

Yes, You Can Have An Open And Transparent Treaty Negotiation For Intellectual Property

Mike Masnick — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:02:02 PDT

We had mentioned along with the news that the WIPO treaty for the blind had been signed in Marrakech that it proved that -- contrary to the claims of the USTR -- that you don't need to keep negotiations of an intellectual property treaty secret. Sean Flynn has now expanded on this to debunk the USTR's clearly untrue assertion.

The elements of WIPO’s transparency processes are varied. they start with ongoing releases of draft negotiating documents dating back to the beginning of the process. ACTA was marked by releases of negotiating texts only through leaks, until the EU parliament demanded increased transparency – after which point negotiators released four public texts in the final 12 months. The TPP negotiators claim they will complete their treaty this October (which no one believes). There has not been a single public release of text, thus failing to live up to even the meager standard for public releases that defined ACTA. The leaked texts of TPP that we have show a secret agreement to keep the texts of the proposals being considered until four years AFTER the conclusion of the agreement. Thus, even subsequent interpreters of the TPP may be prevented from seeing its legislative history.

WIPO webcasted negotiations, and even established listening rooms where stakeholders could hear (but not be physically present in) break rooms where negotiators were working on specific issues. ACTA was not subject to any observation of negotiating rooms by non-parties. TPP negotiators even rejected a request by a U.S. Congressman to observe a negotiation.

WIPO set up a system of open and transparent structured stakeholder input, including published reports and summaries of stakeholder working groups composed of commercial and non-commercial interests alike. ACTA was, and TPP is, informed by structured input from multinational corporations who receive secret drafts of texts and submit reports to the United States Trade Representative. There are no consumer representatives among these advisers and none of their reports are public.

Transparency in WIPO continued through the final days of intense, often all night, negotiations in the final diplomatic conference. When negotiators reached a new breakthrough on the language concerning the controversial “3-step test” limiting uses of limitations and exceptions in national laws, that news was released to the public (enabling public news stories on it), along with the draft text of the agreement. There are now reports that a majority of the chapters of the TPP are concluded, and perhaps a majority of the articles in the IP section – but the public has no public text to see what those agreements might be.

The list goes on and on and the contrast is incredibly clear. The USTR is being misleading to downright dishonest in suggesting that it couldn't possibly have the same level of transparency in the negotiations around agreements like the TPP or ACTA (or the upcoming TAFTA).

Marrakech Treaty For The Blind Signed; MPAA Unable To Kill It

Mike Masnick — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:27:55 PDT

It took decades to get this done, but it appears that a copyright treaty for the blind has been signed in Marrakech, and despite a full court press from the MPAA to further water down the agreement, it appears the final version is closer to what the various public interest and blind groups wanted. Apparently, US and EU negotiators were not thrilled with the outcome, but couldn't fight it any more. The full text hasn't been released yet, but from all the commentary out of Marrakech, it sounds like the MPAA failed to poison this treaty. I'm sure we'll have more on this later, but two things to discuss out of this:

Contrary to the claims of the USTR about how it would be crazy to negotiate agreements like ACTA, TPP or TAFTA with openness on the drafts being considered, this agreement was negotiated with transparency and (mostly) openness. Once again, we see that the USTR is full of it with its lack of transparency.
There is still a ratification question. Expect the MPAA efforts to now shift to blocking the US from actually ratifying the treaty, which is rather important, since the key part of the treaty is letting creative works for the blind enter into various countries, but most of the books would likely originate from the US....

MPAA's Actions, Emails Show That They're Doing Everything Possible To Screw Over The Blind

Mike Masnick — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:55:21 PDT

Back in April, we pointed out that the MPAA was working overtime to screw over the blind in the negotiations for a WIPO treaty to make it easier for the blind and those with vision impairment to access works for the blind. They'd already succeeded in screwing over the deaf by getting them excluded from the treaty, despite it initially being for both. Over the past two months, however, the MPAA tried to go on a charm offensive going on and on about how much they really, really liked blind people and wanted to help get a treaty passed, even somehow getting the National Federation for the Blind to throw their own members under the bus by issuing a joint statement claiming to support the treaty.

However, over the past week, the reports coming out of the treaty negotiations in Marrakesh have been consistent about one thing: the MPAA's influence over the US negotiators has been immense, and the US negotiators have been the single source blocking the completion of the treaty by arguing to gut the entire treaty, making it next to useless. They've fought against fair use. They've fought against exceptions to copyright. It's gotten so bad that even the mainstream press has picked up on the MPAA's direct assault on the blind. The Washington Post has an article all about the MPAA's attempts to block and change the treaty such that it is effectively useless.

But the treaty, years in the making, could be in jeopardy because of unresolved differences between advocates for the blind and the Motion Picture Association of America, which says the accord could undermine protections important for filmmakers, publishers and other major industries.

Of course, you might wonder why the MPAA is so concerned about a treaty for the blind, which is mostly focused on written materials, since that shouldn't impact the MPAA very much. The answer is what we've said for years: copyright maximalists will fight against any treaty that recognizes the rights of people to push back against maximalism through things like fair use. And the MPAA isn't even coy about this:

“What happens here could affect other future treaties,” said Chris Marcich, who is in charge of dealing with the negotiations for the MPAA and its international wing, the Motion Picture Association.

Yes, how dare the public have their rights supported during treaty negotiations about what they can do with works they own. Horrors.

The article also highlights that the MPAA was instrumental in getting the negotiators to drop more expansive fair use rights of the public included, insisting instead on only allowing the "three step test" from the Berne Convention included. As we've discussed in the past the three step test is merely one way in which a country can protect the public's rights to limitations and exceptions in copyright law, but maximalists like to claim it's the only way, because if you read it in the strictest sense, it severely limits fair use, because a use fails the "three step test" if it "unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the rights holder." In other words, if the rights holder doesn't like it, no fair use for you. Amazingly, even this test is now not enough for the MPAA:

But the MPAA says the protections afforded by the three-step test are still too weak and wants them to be more effective. Moreover, Hollywood is strongly resisting language in the draft that mirrors the concept of “fair use,” long embodied in U.S. copyright law. Fair use says that copyright material can be used without permission in certain circumstances, such as for nonprofit educational purposes.

Related to all of this, KEI has received, via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, all emails between MPAA lobbyists and the negotiators from the USPTO (who are handling much of the negotiation). It's worth noting, by the way, that the key person at the USPTO (and the person addressed in many of these emails) is Shire Perlmutter, currently the Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs at the USPTO, but prior to that was the Executive VP of IFPI (the international version of of the RIAA) and before that, was VP and Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property Policy at Time Warner... a member of the MPAA when it owned Warner Bros.

Included in the documents is an incredible attack on fair use by the MPAA, sent in April of this year, just as the MPAA was insisting it wanted to help the blind, and at the same time that the MPAA's Ben Sheffner was, ridiculously, pretending that the MPAA was one of the world's biggest defenders of fair use. Yet, at the very same time, they were promoting a document that claimed the following about fair use:

As has been pointed out by various commentators, open-ended systems such as fair use under Sec. 107 US Copyright Act may raise issues with the three-step test, in particular the first and possibly third step.... Consequently, it is neither necessary nor would it be reasonable or desirable in view of the mentioned difficulties to include an express reference to fair use or fair dealing in the proposed instrument.

A specific reference to fair use or fair dealing could also be misleading for it could be understood as an invitation to implement the instrument in such a way, whether or not it sits well with the particular legal system of the Contracting Party in question. However, any wholesale introduction of a particular legal feature, be it fair use, fair dealing or a closed list, would be contrary to the intended effect of the discretion that Contracting Parties may exercise with regard to the way of implementing their treaty obligations....

At a time when the fair use doctrine is considered by many as a cure for all ills, this would clearly be the wrong sign....

Consequently, for all the foregoing reasons, the reference to specific ways of implementation such as fair use or fair dealing should be omitted from the proposed instrument.

These are the defenders of fair use? These are the folks who claim they're trying to help the blind? That's all a lie. And the quotes above are just a few. There are a lot more of that nature. The MPAA wants to screw over the blind out of a fear that people might realize that fair use and other rights of the public might just be more important than an artificial government monopoly system to inflate their bottom lines.

Later in the documents, you can see the cozy relationship between the key government players, Perlmutter and Justin Hughes (another well-known maximalist supporter, now in the government) and MPAA members and lobbyists. There's also a discussion about how three steps in Berne only applies to certain types of copyright rights (reproduction rights), but does not apply to other things like public performances, and how their wishes are to go even further and make sure the very limiting 3 steps applies to everything. It also shows that the US government, via Perlmutter and Hughes, helped propose back to the MPAA how they might achieve their goals in the agreement. In an email from Scott Martin at Paramount to Perlmutter:

I suggested to Justin the concept that I heard from both you and Karyn Temple Claggett: membership in the VIP Treaty be limited to countries that have ratified and implemented the WCT. Perhaps if there is resistance from non-ratifiers, the US/EU could then proposal a new Article Ebis that would apply only to countries which want to ratify the VIP Treaty but which have not yet ratified and implemented WCT.

Justin seemed intrigued by the idea and mused that perhaps the Japanese proposal for Article E could be expanded to cover this separate goal.

There are also cases where people, such as Time Warner employees, were sending language they wanted inserted directly to Hughes at his request. At one point, Hughes emails Bradley Silver at Time Warner with a simple request:

Could you just send me the whole language?

That was after Silver specifically asked Hughes to "tweak" the language in one section.

Basically, the documents make it abundantly clear that the MPAA is trying to keep fair use/fair dealing way out of the agreement, and then seeking to undermine things even further by putting in place an extreme version of the three step test -- a test that already goes way too far in limiting the public's rights to make use of works. It further shows that the MPAA's public stance that it's in support of a treaty for the blind is hogwash. It's in support of a treaty that strips away many of the rights for the blind.

Copyright Exceptions Gaining Ground Around The World -- But Not For The Blind

Glyn Moody — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:25:00 PDT

There finally seems to be a growing recognition in many countries that copyright is not fit for the digital age. In the US, the Copyright Registrar has spoken on this; in the UK, the Hargreaves Review delineated many problems; and more recently, Australia, too, is starting to address the question. As part of the process of implementing Hargreaves' recommendations, the UK government is carrying out a consultation on whether the UK should adopt the full list of copyright exceptions that are laid out in the EU Copyright Directive, which provides the overarching framework for copyright in Europe. It has now published some questionnaires seeking input in this area:

Each of the documents below relates to a separate exception, and contains a series of questions. We would welcome answers to the questions we have posed and any specific drafting suggestions.

The first drafts we are publishing for review are the exceptions for private copying, parody, quotation and public administration. Drafts for the other exceptions will be released as soon as they are ready.

The exception for private copying is straightforward: will allow an individual to copy content they own, and which they acquired lawfully, to another medium or device for their own personal use.
Regrettably, it does not allow the circumvention of DRM: the making of the further copy does not involve the circumvention of effective technological measures applied to the copy from which it is made.
That really guts the new exception, since publishers will simply add DRM to prevent copies being made. On the plus side, the proposed exception does explicitly state that contracts seeking to restrict the right to this exception will be unenforceable. That's also true of the proposed exceptions for caricature, parody or pastiche, and for quotation.

Although welcome, the UK's proposed copyright exceptions are hardly earth-shattering. Moreover, they don't change the fundamental approach to copyright in the UK. Australia's latest proposals for updating copyright, published recently as an extremely thorough and clearly-written 388-page discussion paper are considerably bolder, because they recommend shifting from the current fair dealing approach to fair use. Where the former consists of a limited set of defenses against alleged copyright infringement, fair use lists the general factors to be considered in determining whether the use is a fair or not.

Australia's proposed list of fairness factors are as follows:

(a) the purpose and character of the use;

(b) the nature of the copyright material used;

(c) in a case where part only of the copyright material is used -- the amount and substantiality of the part used, considered in relation to the whole of the copyright material; and

(d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyright material.

These are closely modelled on those applied in the US: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
However, it's worth emphasizing that this is only a recommendation in a discussion paper (with comments open until 31 July.) Indeed, an alternative option is also presented, whereby the current fair dealing exceptions in Australian law would be extended to include a wide range of new ones, including for 'non-consumptive' use (temporary copies on the Internet, for example); private and domestic purposes; quotation; education; and libraries and archives.

Those are close to the more cautious approach being adopted in the UK (the Hargreaves Review noted the virtues of fair use, but claimed that there were "significant difficulties" in moving to it because of EU law.) But what's interesting is that both the UK and Australia, with its two alternative proposals, recognize that exceptions offer an effective way to update the copyright system. That contrasts with the obdurate position of the copyright maximalists, who claim that granting any copyright exception for the blind, no matter how limited, would somehow cause the whole system to collapse. That's simply absurd, as the current moves by both the UK and Australia to widen greatly the scope of copyright exceptions clearly demonstrate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

How The MPAA Fought To Keep Audiovisual Materials Out Of WIPO Treaty For The Blind/Deaf; And How That's A Disaster For Education

Mike Masnick — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:11:35 PDT

The MPAA has been trying to rehabilitate its image concerning its well documented attempts to screw over the blind and the deaf in blocking the decades-in-negotiations WIPO treaty to improve access to works. Over at KEI, Fedro De Tomassi, has a detailed explanation for how the MPAA fought to keep "audio-visual works" completely out of the treaty, and the massive impact it has on education. First, he notes how frequently video is now used in the classroom:

Since I started taking classes at St. Olaf college 3 years ago, there has not been one professor that has not used some sort of audiovisual aid during the course. I am a political science major, and the trends of using videos is no different in the humanities. For example in my Russian and Eurasian politics class, we studied the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states today, and the use of Youtube videos and documentary films were instrumental in giving us a better understanding of the situation. The use of videos in education has become a norm to address the needs of various types of learners as well as to complement the various tools and sources at the disposal of the professors.

Videos are not used solely in the classroom, they are assigned as homework and part of the syllabus and the “reading list” of most if not all courses you have to take to get a bachelor today. Audiovisual materials also compose a large part of the library. Archival footage for example is an essential part of a history major curriculum.

Just last week, I had dinner with a university professor who was telling me the difficulty she had in trying to get the use of videos approved for her teaching, asking a variety of people about the copyright issues of even linking to clips online and getting back vague or contradictory answers.

Fedro then points out how the MPAA made sure the treaty for the blind and the deaf turned into one just for the blind.

In 2009, the Motion Picture Industry began to lobby the Obama Administration to narrow the treaty to "print disabilities" only, and to eliminate deaf persons as beneficiaries. By 2010, the Obama Administration took a hard line in the WIPO negotiations, backed upon by the European Union, to narrow the treaty, excluding deaf persons. This was designed to overcome political opposition from the MPAA, and the USPTO said the compromise on beneficiaries was necessary for the text to move forward. In November 2010, the WIPO SCCR agreed to separate the more "mature" issues of visually impaired and reading disabilities from "other disabilities" in its negotiations. In June 2011, a new committee sponsored negotiating text for this treaty (SCCR/24/9) defined beneficiaries in such a way that deaf persons were excluded.

But, that's not all. There were still questions around "audiovisual works" and the MPAA went to work again:

From 1985 to 2011, the various treaty proposals all would have covered any copyrighted work, including, for example SCCR/23/7, the text published in December 2011. But shortly after the MPAA was able to remove deaf persons as beneficiaries, they lobbied the Obama Administration to remove audiovisual works from the text. The Obama Administration proposed this formally in June 2012, and in December 2012, there was a deal to eliminate audiovisual works from the text, in order to get an agreement to hold a diplomatic conference in June 2013. Since nothing is set in stone in the negotiation, that decision can be changed, but it will probably require a change of position in the Obama White House, which has threatened to block the treaty if audiovisual works are included.

The MPAA's claims that it wants this treaty passed ring pretty hollow. It wants a completely gutted version approved at a time when audiovisual works are increasingly not just important, but necessary, for education.

US Looking To Strip Fair Use & Other Key Protections From Copyright Treaty For The Blind

Mike Masnick — Wed, 5 Jun 2013 15:40:50 PDT

We had just pointed out that the MPAA is now pretending to be in support of a copyright treaty for the blind, despite its lobbyists doing all sort of things to try to block it. Now we have reports from Geneva, via Jamie Love, that the US is opposing important language in the treaty, which is part of the reason that it's still being held up. First, as noted in the link above, the US is opposing the following footnote, which may seem like a small deal:

It is understood that Contracting Parties who are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) acknowledge all the principles and objectives of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and understand that nothing in this Treaty affects the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, including, but not limited to, the provisions relating to anti-competitive practices.

As Love notes, similar language has appeared in a variety of other agreements, including ACTA and the Beijing Treaty (which would give Hollywood stars their own special copyrights). Why is this language important? Because TRIPS includes key provisions that allow countries to make some of their own decisions about how they implement the agreements, to protect the public's rights. But, the content industry doesn't want that same language in this treaty, which is focused on the public's rights, because they're afraid it will, once again, open the door to countries expanding the public's rights, and pushing back on egregious copyright restrictions on those rights.

As if to drive that point home, in a later update emailed from Love, he notes that the US is now also trying to get the phrase "fair practices, dealings or uses" deleted from the following section of the treaty:

"Contracting parties may fulfill their rights and obligations under this Treaty through, exceptions or limitations, specifically for the benefit of beneficiary persons,other exceptions or limitations,or a combination thereof within their national legal traditions/systems. These may include judicial, administrative or regulatory determinations for the benefit of beneficiary persons as to fair practices, dealings or uses to meet their needs."

In other words, it's just as we said the MPAA is trying to do: sure they claim they want a treaty to help the blind, but not if it includes anything even remotely suggesting an expansion of the public's fair use rights. So, here, they're "fine" with helping the blind get access to works, but not if it's done via fair use.

Incredible.

MPAA: Oh, Of Course We Want To Help The Blind Read More... Just As Long As You Don't Touch Copyright

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:28:25 PDT

So it appears that late last week, the MPAA realized that their whole stance on trying to block the approval of an important copyright treaty for helping the visually impaired and the blind gain more access to works was a PR nightmare, and decided to put out a joint statement with the National Federation for the Blind. Apparently, Chris Dodd's initial weak attempt at claiming that it loved helping the blind, despite working hard to stop the treaty, wasn't enough. Of course, the new "joint statement" is really more of the same when you peel back the basics.

We fully support a Treaty that facilitates access to published works in the form of text, notation and/or related illustrations for the blind and print disabled to address the book famine wherein the blind and print disabled have access to less than five percent of published works worldwide.

Then why have your lobbyists been the key blockade in that very agreement for years?

The Treaty must achieve two overarching goals: creating exceptions and limitations in copyright law which allow published works to be converted into formats accessible to the blind and print disabled, and permitting accessible copies of published works to be shared across international borders.

Yup. And that's what's been on the table for quite some time. And you know who's made sure to hold it up? Yes, the MPAA.

Ultimately, we believe it should be for signatories to determine how they will implement the Treaty in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions. We underscore that this important Treaty must not be a vehicle for extraneous agendas. The goal remains, as it has been since the outset, a meaningful treaty to create greater access to published works for the visually impaired.

Again, then you shouldn't have been blocking what's on the table for a while. Furthermore, it's kind of funny to see the MPAA now say that it wants countries to "determine how they will implement the Treaty in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions." Because that's the exact opposite position that the MPAA takes on other copyright efforts, like ACTA/TPP/etc. where the goal is to force the US's way on other countries. Hell, the MPAA has spent years telling other countries they need to add "digital locks" provisions to copyright law, even when that was inconsistent with their own legal and administrative positions. Basically, the MPAA is lying here. They only want that "flexibility" when we're talking about giving the public more rights, because they know they have enough sway with various governments such that those governments will block any meaningful changes to copyright law to allow more access to works by the blind.

From there, they list out a bunch of "core principles" that any treaty must follow, most of which are completely uncontroversial. But the two at the end are the ones that the MPAA is really focused on is:

4. Ensure that the treaty will be fully consistent with international copyright norms.
5. Avoid addressing extraneous copyright issues not directly related to creating greater access to published works for the blind and print disabled.

Basically, the MPAA will ensure that "international copyright norms" doesn't allow for things like fair use or other rights of the public, preferring instead to lock everything down as much as possible. And the "extraneous copyright issues" are, basically, the rights of the public. The MPAA's not a big fan of all that.

It's great that the MPAA is now saying this kind of stuff, and it could have said all of this a couple years ago and we could have had this treaty in place way back then, because nothing they say goes against what's been on the table. So, let's see what happens in the next negotiations, and we'll see how helpful MPAA lobbyists really are in terms of completing this process....

Blind Law School Dean Explains Why We Need The WIPO Copyright Treaty For The Blind

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:02:00 PDT

As the MPAA and other copyright maximalist organizations continue to try to block the WIPO copyright treaty for the blind, which will make it easier for blind people around the globe to be able to access creative works, I was touched by this incredible video from Ron McCallum, the former dean at the University of Sydney Law School, where he is now an Emeritus Professor. McCallum has been blind since birth, and in the video he talks about how technology changed his life and allowed him to do so much -- and how important the treaty in question is, to allow that same revolution to help others, especially in less developed countries. It's touching and entertaining at the same time, and should make you wonder why the MPAA wants so badly to reject this treaty. Obviously, the MPAA doesn't hate blind people, but they're so ridiculously scared of any expansion of the rights of the public (things like fair use) that they'll block any and all moves in that direction, even if the collateral damage means that other Ron McCallums around the globe won't be able to have the wonderful experiences that he did.

White House Makes It Impossible For The Blind To Sign Petition Supporting Copyright Treaty For The Blind

Mike Masnick — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:33:00 PDT

Last week, we discussed a recent We The People petition at the White House, asking the administration to support the treaty for the blind, which would make it easier to access creative works for the blind by creating a few small "exceptions" to copyright law (i.e., returning rights to the public) for the sake of sharing formats that are accessible to the blind across borders. However, some blind advocacy groups have discovered that, if you happen to be blind/visually impaired, it's basically impossible to sign the petition.

The glitch, the group says, is in those often annoying tests that require users to type in a set of numbers and letters to prove they are human. On the White House web site, blind users can select an audio version of the test, but the audio is incomprehensible, according to federation spokesman Chris Danielsen.

And if users want to send email notifying the White House about the problem, well, that also requires a computer-human test with garbled audio, too, he said.

That's certainly convenient for an administration that has increasingly moved away from its earlier stance that it supported this treaty. Now, making it almost impossible for the actual stakeholders to express their opinion really should drive home why increased accessibility is important. Hopefully the White House will quickly fix this bug, but more importantly, it would be nice if they actually supported the damn treaty.

Petition Asks Obama To Support Treaty For The Blind, Rather Than Siding With Hollywood

Mike Masnick — Fri, 24 May 2013 15:51:00 PDT

During the course of President Obama's administration, he has gone back and forth over support for the WIPO treaty for the blind, which would make it easier for vision impaired people to get copies of books that they can read (allowing legally made copies to be shared across borders). It's a pretty simple proposition, and while the White House had announced support for the agreement back in 2009, the people who were responsible for that position were later replaced by content industry folks, who suddenly changed the administration's position on the treaty. Since then, the administration has been responsible for blocking the treaty from getting done. And, of course, we've seen the MPAA celebrate this lack of a treaty, because it sees any attempt to negotiate a treaty that includes "exceptions" to copyright (i.e., rights of the public) expanded as a problem.

With the next round of negotiations set to take place soon in Morocco, a "We the People" petition has been set up to ask President Obama to side with the blind, rather than the MPAA.

Less than 1% of printed works globally are accessible to the blind. This is because laws around the world bar printed material from being turned into formats useable by the blind and visually impaired, or for such material to be shared across borders.

That’s why 186 countries will soon convene in Morocco to finalize a Treaty that would empower the world’s nearly 300 million blind citizens with the same rights to read, learn, and earn that the sighted enjoy. However, huge and powerful corporations – many wholly unaffected by the proposed Treaty – are working to fatally weaken it or block its adoption.

Ask the President to compel US negotiators to fight for a strong Treaty that gives blind people equal access to books and doesn't burden those who want to provide them. Please sign today!

It may be difficult to get to 100,000 signatures, but We The People petitions have previously been successful in getting the administration to come out against SOPA and against the Library of Congress' decision to say that unlocking mobile phones is a form of copyright infringement.

Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

Mike Masnick — Mon, 20 May 2013 07:50:09 PDT

As you may recall, we've recently written about the MPAA's protests against a treaty for the blind, as well as a similar protest from the Intellectual Property Owners Association (on that front, we heard that many members of that group never saw that letter before it was sent out, and were not happy about it). Now there's another group sending a letter, and it's equally as ridiculous. Business Europe, which appears to have a lot of non-European companies as members (interesting, that), has written a ridiculous letter with little basis in fact, arguing that this treaty for the blind would be "casting aside" the "international copyright infrastructure."

Of course, it does no such thing. All it does is provide extremely limited situations in which copyright restrictions would be limited for the sake of making it easier for vision-impaired people to access works. They also claim that it relies on "hasty conclusions" which is flat out laughable, since the treaty has been under discussion for almost three decades, but has been regularly blocked by organizations like those mentioned above. Business Europe's real complaint seems to be that it just doesn't like the people who like this treaty.

... it is strongly supported by the same group of NGOs and advanced emerging economy countries that pursue a general IPR-weakening agenda at WIPO and other international forums.

Got that? Those who argue that providing more rights to the public support this very minor place where more rights would be provided to the vision-impaired public, and we can't have that. No, no. They also, rather bizarrely, claim that some countries who are likely to sign on to this treaty "do not provide any copyright protection whatsoever." Jamie Love at KEI asks exactly which countries they're talking about. The statement from Business Europe is nothing but fear mongering. If a country doesn't provide any copyright protection at all, then why would it even care about a treaty whose focus is providing exceptions to copyright?

The level of freakout from these giant companies over helping the blind is really quite incredible.

Colombia's Other Copyright Bill: Moving Things In The Right Direction?

Glyn Moody — Tue, 14 May 2013 00:03:00 PDT

If you wanted an indication of just how much copyright has moved on from being a dry and boring topic of interest only to a few specialist lawyers to an exciting area full of surprising twists and turns worthy of a soap opera, you could do worse than look at what's been happening in Colombia recently.

A year ago, the Colombian government rushed through a really bad copyright law, known as "Ley Lleras 2", pretty much as a welcome gift for President Obama, who was about to visit the country. It did this by invoking an "emergency procedure" that let it ignore nation-wide protests that had followed the presentation of a similar bill earlier, the original "Ley Lleras". In January of this year, Ley Lleras 2 was struck down by Colombia's Constitutional Court, but for purely procedural reasons, rather than because of its substance. Before this, however, another bill had been prepared that sought to fix some of the glaring problems with Ley Lleras 2. Even though the latter has been blocked for the moment, the other bill is proceeding:

This Bill contains provisions regarding limitation and exceptions to Copyright Law. Last 16 of April the Bill passed the second debate in the House of Representatives. Now it is pending for debate in the Senate.

This Bill contains six articles regarding limitations and exceptions. Article 1 mandates an exception for temporary copies made as part of a technological process in some specific circumstances. Article 2 mandates an exception in favor of people with sight or hearing disabilities. Article 3 mandates an exception in favor of libraries and archives allowing them to lend a work. Article 4 mandates an exception in favor of parody. Article 5 mandates an exception in favor of educational institutions allowing the public performance of a work under certain circumstances. Finally, Article 6 repeals all provisions contrary to the ones mandated by this Bill.

As infojustice.org points out in the post quoted above, this "other" Colombian copyright bill has already had a number of positive effects: First, after the petition made by Red PaTodos, this Bill is being publicly debated. This is a positive point because previous copyright bills have been enacted through processes without public discussions. Second, some sectors of society other than copyright scholars have engaged in the discussion, and they have manifested their concerns regarding this bill. For instance, radio shows and news organizations that use parody as a way to inform people or make political criticism have raised their concerns about the scope of the parody exception and its effects in limiting parody. This is positive because it shows that different sectors of the society have realized the importance of copyright law in their daily activities. Third, the Colombian Parliament has the copyright law in their legislative agenda, and it has realized the importance of having a balanced copyright system.
It's too early to guess what the final outcome of these two interlocking bills moving through the parliamentary system will be -- there's still plenty of time for yet more surprises. But the fact that there has been some open discussion of the proposed law, and that people are becoming aware of and engaged by the key issues raised by it, offers some hope that Colombia might end up with a better-balanced copyright system than either of the original Ley Lleras proposals would have provided.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Intellectual Property Owners Association Against Helping The Blind Because It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent'

Mike Masnick — Wed, 8 May 2013 08:37:31 PDT

We've been covering the latest efforts by copyright maximalists to screw over the blind in the decades-in-waiting WIPO treaty process to help them get more access to content by creating clear carveouts in copyright law that protect the rights of the blind and of those who are transforming works for the blind. Basically, it's about protecting the fundamental rights of the blind to have access to information that others have because they have sight. This process has gone on for ages, in large part because copyright maximalists absolutely fear the idea that anyone might put forth an agreement that ever so slightly pushes back on the maximalist agenda.

The amazing thing is that they're not even subtle about this. Last year, we noted that in a video by Jamie Love showing Alan Adler, a VP for the Association of American Publishers, Adler was quite upfront about the fact that they're against this agreement for the blind not because of the blind folks who need the help, but rather because they're afraid of even opening the door to expanding things like fair use -- which he claims is some sort of attack on copyright.

Jamie Love has now called our attention to a letter sent by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) to Teresa Stanek Rea, the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the USPTO, concerning this treaty, in which the IPO is equally explicit that its main complaint is any expansion of user rights like fair use is simply not acceptable. From the full letter, which is also embedded below:

IPO supports international action that addresses the needs of the visually impaired in meaningful ways, but we are concerned about the VIP treaty as currently drafted, focused exclusively on L/Es and not on the rights holders whose copyrights are at stake. We are also concerned about the potentially negative, precedential effect that a one-sided, exceptions-focused VIP treaty may have on parallel developments at WIPO and in other international negotiations

This is all sorts of hilarious. After all, the folks at IPO have long supported incredibly one-sided agreements that only focus on the expansion of copyright, and they're among those who have actively fought any attempt to include user rights (they prefer to call them "limitations and exceptions") in such agreements. So for them to suddenly step up and complain that this one small, narrowly focused agreement is a problem because it "only" focuses on such things, without regards to their "rights holders whose copyrights are at stake" is pretty funny. Why has IPO never been concerned about the rights of the public and users in every other such agreement?

Our main concern about the VIP treaty, as currently drafted, is that it addresses L/Es to copyrights in isolation, without parallel provisions addressing IP holders’ rights. The proposed VIP treaty would create specific L/Es to copyright protection, with the aim of broadening access to print works for the visually impaired. However, it would not reflect the importance of protecting the copyright of those who created the work.

Okay, so simple question for the IPO folks: in all future agreements that it supports, will it agree to support a "balance" that addresses user rights, rather than focusing on "copyrights in isolation without parallel provisions addressing users rights?"

The idea that the "rights" here are only one way and must be constantly ratcheted up is disingenuous and somewhat sickening. It's this position that has kept the blind community from having access to all sorts of works for decades. And during those decades, folks like IPO have supported all sorts of incredibly one-sided expansions to copyright law without concerns for any public or user rights.

MPAA Tells US Government To Screw Over The Blind, Reject Fair Use

Mike Masnick — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:39:00 PDT

Just this morning we were pointing out the MPAA's long history of attacking fair use. We noted that this often happened in international fora, where the MPAA and others would seek to block fair use in treaties and push rules that would limit or reject the possibility of fair use. And, just like clockwork, up pops an example. Apparently the "fair use defenders" at the MPAA are working overtime to get the White House to back down on promises concerning the decades-long negotiations for a treaty to help blind people not get screwed over by copyright law. The US has flip flopped on this issue over the past few years, but apparently had finally made some concessions that were allowing the process to move forward. The MPAA wants to kill all of that.

In Geneva this week the US government is taking a harder line in the WIPO negotiations for a treaty on copyright exceptions for the blind, and the reason is simple -- lobbyists for the MPAA and publishers have been all over the White House, demanding a retreat from compromises made in February, and demanding that the Obama Administration push new global standards for technical protection measures, strip the treaty text of any reference to fair use and fair dealing, and impose new financial liabilities on libraries that serve blind people. So far the industry lobbying has worked, and the White House has sided with publishers against blind people. Dan Pescod from the World Blind Union says the conditions the USA are imposing are so severe the treaty "won't work", if they are included in the final text.

I guess they figure that blind people don't watch too many movies, so screw 'em. Apparently, it's so bad that even some US negotiators find the MPAA's actions unseemly.

Some US negotiators are uncomfortable with the intensive lobbying by the MPAA and other publishers, but dismayed by the lack of backbone in the White House to resist such pressures.

Yup, those "fair use defenders" at the MPAA sure do have the public's interest in mind, huh?