Shameful: US Secrecy Holding Up Treaty To Help Blind Access Copyrighted Works
from the more-of-the-same dept
We've been talking about ACTA and TPP and the ridiculous levels of secrecy around them for a while now, but the US's overly secret policies are showing up in other treaty issues as well. For years, we've been talking about negotiations at WIPO to create a treaty that would provide specific exceptions to copyright law to help the blind get access to works in formats they could read (basically, it would make it so the blind could more easily import braille and other versions that are readable for the visually impaired from other countries). This issue has been out there forever. And while we always hear how important it is that US negotiators rush to get deals like ACTA and TPP done, they've dragged their heels on the treaty for the blind for ages. At the urging of copyright holders, the Obama administration came out against such a treaty a few years ago. And the EU Commission has been against such a treaty for a while as well, claiming that it's just too hard to put in place. Yeah, rush through things like ACTA and TPP... but helping the blind get access to works? That's just too hard...Over at WIPO, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) conference is ongoing, and one of the agenda items is this treaty for the blind. One of the key points that have held up negotiations is whether or not this should really be a "treaty." As I understand it, copyright maximalists are scared silly of creating an actual treaty that is focused on "exceptions and limitations," because that might make people realize that exceptions and limitations are a thing they can create whole treaties around... and thus we'd start seeing a lot more of that.
And, in fact, on the agenda at SCCR are two other potential agreements (which are much newer) discussing the possibility of exceptions and limitations in two other areas: education and libraries. As this video, shot by Jamie Love at KEI of Alan Adler, the VP of the Association of American Publishers, shows, he's against these kinds of treaties because the publishers believe that exceptions and limitations are an attack on their rights, and they don't want to support that kind of thing.
There's no way to describe this other than absolutely shameful on the part of the US government and the Obama administration. It's dragged its feet for years on helping the blind over this issue, even while trying to rush through all sorts of copyright treaties that favor Hollywood. And now, despite all of that, having the US (once again) keep the text a secret... it's just shameful.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The right to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right to read
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We could make it our new motto if we could fit it on a dollar bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Corpori ante populum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
enim corporatus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what you would call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... it's just shameful."
Pretty sure having a sense of shame precludes you from participating in politics. What would cause "shame" to a normal person only invokes feelings of "me" and "whatever" to a politician. Their feelings on any given issue is directly correlated to how much they are getting paid to pretend they posses those things called "feel-lings(?)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NEVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/07/19/wipo-announces-new-policy-on-assistance-to-north-korea- iran/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my opinion your use of the word "shameful" is over the top, misleading, and prejudicial, doing little more than to try and cast these multinational sessions in as negative a light as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've now spoken to 5 different people attending SCCR and all say that the text remains secret, and they're upset that time is running out to actually discuss the proposal.
In my opinion your use of the word "shameful" is over the top, misleading, and prejudicial, doing little more than to try and cast these multinational sessions in as negative a light as possible.
No. It is shameful. This is an issue that the White House has dragged its feet on, flip-flopped over and generally just resisted every attempt to move forward. It's shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There has been confirmation from nearly every other party that they want the text public and would like to move forward. The missing party is the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone explain to me
Perhaps the solution is term limits on department heads. Of course, they would need to hire someone qualified so would just poach people from the industries they are supposed to be regulating...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First sale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]