US Steadfast In Its Stand For Publishers Against The Disabled

from the bad-news dept

Mon, Oct 22nd 2012 3:16am — Mike Masnick

We've talked a few times about how the US seems to be leading the charge to block a treaty that would increase the ability of blind and other disabled people to get around copyright restrictions to access certain works. The treaty has been in negotiations for ages -- and the US position has, at times, flip-flopped. However, now it seems firmly aligned with copyright maximalist lobbyists. The latest report from the negotiations is that publishers and the movie studios have convinced US negotiators to push back on this treaty:

The United State is playing a big major role, and led by David Kappos' USPTO, generally is aligned with the publishers in efforts to narrow the agreement and limit its benefits to persons with disabilities, and is increasingly isolated in its opposition to a decision that the nature of the "instrument" will be a treaty rather than a softer non-blinding recommendation or model law. One major objective of the US delegation is to exclude persons who are deaf. Another is to limit the exceptions to text, and exclude any audiovisual content or related rights. Both of these negotiating objectives are designed to keep the U.S. movie and television industry happy. The U.S. has also been seeking ways to support other publisher friendly provisions, even when they run counter to the robust exceptions found in U.S. law.

Siding with big studios and publishers over the best interests of the blind and the deaf? How nice...

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

Filed Under: blind, copyright, deaf, disabled, publishers, us, wipo

88 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:18am

But Mike, the blind and deaf contruibutew nothing to the entertainment economy of quadrillions in pretend money!!!!

WHY ARE YOU AGAINST THE ARTISTS!?!?!???!!!?!?!!

/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  You now NET CONTENT consuming...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  Clearly, pirate Mike is a shill for Big Disability.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dionaea (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:20am

Aren't the big publishers blind and deaf too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:22am
  
  Re:
  It may seem like that. Actually it's a rare form of autistism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - byte^me (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Please don't insult people with autism like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:01am
  
  Re:
  I think "dumb" sums it up well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:28am

I wonder how long it take before AJ comes trolling in as usual.What a shithead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:24am
  
  Re:
  You didn't get the news. out_of_the_blue and average_joe got their shill sites scope swapped, as they were near burnt out and pay was too low.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:30am

You can thank Citzrns United for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:39am
  
  Re:
  please explain
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Citizens United basically states that corporations are people too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Citizens United basically states that corporations are people too.
      
      Have you ever read the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ? Or is it simply tl;dr ?
      
      You'd rather mindlessly repeat political talking points? or make the effort to learn what the decision actually said? Reading is hard, and learning is harder.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ya, people in every sense of the word except they can't be held personally accountable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For once, I'll give you an �average_joe� type wall of legal citations�although I'm redacting the pincites, and emphasizing some text for readability. This is part of what the court's decision in Citizen's United (hyperlinked above) rested in part III A 1:
        
        The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y. (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC (1996); Turner; Simon & Schuster; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC (1989); Florida Star v. B.J. F. (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler (1970).
        
        This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button; Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection "simply because its source is a corporation." Bellotti; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal. (1986) (plurality opinion) ("The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the `discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas' that the First Amendment seeks to foster" (quoting Bellotti). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not "natural persons."
        
        Now, do you really want to argue that First Amendment protection should not extend to corporate speech?
        
        You are indeed allowed to argue that�despite the substantial precedent for the proposition.
        
        In fact there was quite a bit of opposition to NAACP v Button (1963). Do you have a good argument that Button was wrongly decided?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I appreciate that: however, the fact remains that corporations have all the "rights" of people, as given under the US Constitution, but none of the responsibilities.
        
        That seems like a really bad idea, to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... under the US Constitution...
        
        Hey, eejit! Aren't you from the UK? (Maybe I'm mistaken about that, but I got the impression somewhere along the line that you weren't a U.S. citizen.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Atkray (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your implication that someone who isn't from the US is for some reason unqualified or unable to speak about the US Constitution underscores your own ignorance and prejudices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...underscores your own ignorance and prejudices.
        
        During the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798-1801), the Federalists, led by John Adams (2nd U.S. president) and Alexander Hamilton argued for an English common law understanding of the First Amendment. They argued Blackstone's position that �the freedom of speech� extended only so far as a bar on prior restraints.
        
        The Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the First Amendment was intended to supplant the narrow, Blackstonian conception of the freedom of speech with a broader, more generous, American understanding. The vast expanses of a new continent demanded an equally spacious ideal of the political freedoms justly belonging to inhabitants of that continent.
        
        The Federalists lost the argument, and faded into history. Mr Jefferson was elected as the third U.S. president and purchased the Louisiana territory.
        
        You may believe, sir, that I am prejudiced against the English position on free speech.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You may believe, sir, that I am prejudiced against the English position on free speech.
        And you think that a 200 year-old citation accurately reflects the opinions of the current UK polulation on free speech? Or that current UK law does? After all, look how much the US interpretation of that 200 year-old document has changed in the last couple of decades alone including free speech.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... accurately reflects the opinions of the current UK polulation on free speech?
        
        So what's the real, popular UK opinion on libel tourism?
        
        In 2010, the U.S. had to pass the SPEECH Act to protect Americans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what's the real, popular UK opinion on libel tourism?
        I can't speak for the whole population, but for myself and most people I know the opinion is along the lines of "Oh for f*ck's sake!". IANAL so I don't follow case law but it looks like a stupid law with a ludicrously broad definition of libellous and still worse for allowing the kind of libel tourism we see now often on the most tenuous of grounds.
        
        Frankly since the US corporate government seems determined to stick it's nose in to other countries' laws so much it'd be nice if, instead of bullying countries to prop up their own industies, they used some of that muscle to broker an international agreement on rules to fairly determine the jurisdiction of the many aspects of modern life that cross international boundaries, especially virtually.
        
        Oh, and
        In 2010, the U.S. had to pass the SPEECH Act to protect Americans
        Really? Good for you. God I wish the UK governemnt would pass some laws to curb the massive overreach from the US, or at least stop importing the worst aspects of US law on top of somethign already pretty broken.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It shouldn't matter where I'm from. Moreover, the US Government wants everyone under its thumb. It's sort of like High Chaos Dunwall, only with less plague.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In 2013 we promise to increase the amount of plague by 20% as long as you do as you are told...
        
        (sorry couldnt resist).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Now, do you really want to argue that First Amendment protection should not extend to corporate speech?"
        
        Yes.
        
        Because, until I can kill a corporation by stabbing its building with a knife or shooting it with a gun, corporations are not people.
        
        Free speech applies to *PEOPLE*, NOT corporations.
        
        When you allow corporations to have the same rights as people... Well...
        
        Fascism is the term I'd use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, this stance never made sense to me, You're arguing that a corporation, which is a group of people and not a building, by the way, lose their rights to free speech just because they are speaking in the best interests of the organization. No, a corporation is not a 'person,' it is a group of people.
        
        I've explained my stance, now try and explain yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "See, this stance never made sense to me, You're arguing that a corporation, which is a group of people and not a building, by the way, lose their rights to free speech just because they are speaking in the best interests of the organization. No, a corporation is not a 'person,' it is a group of people."
        
        A corporation is not a group of people. It is a certain kind of business, registered as such for legal and tax purposes, etc.
        
        It has been granted certain rights recently which it did not have before. No one is arguing that corporations should "lose" those rights, only whether they were granted those rights incorrectly.
        
        Also, no one is arguing against the speech rights of someone defending the place where they work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:40am

It truly baffles me how alienating potential customers is seen as good business practice by the copywrong industry. Did they not teach economics or business in college 50 years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:14am
  
  Re:
  Presumably, they feel that allowing anyone an exception for any reason is not acceptable, and that the rights of the disabled are not as important as the profits they imagine they could lose.
  
  If nothing else, they're just providing a morally acceptable excuse for pirates and DRM breakers to do what they do. For some reason, they still haven't understood that they're creating most of the incentives for piracy through their own business practices. It's a shame that the US government seems to be supporting this, but it's not surprising given who has the lobbyists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    they feel that allowing anyone an exception for any reason is not acceptable, and that the rights of the disabled are not as important as the profits they imagine they could lose.
    
    Actually, they believe that rights of the disabled are not as important as the profits that they can prevent other people from making.
    
    A few years ago, I was at a public hearing on changes to my country's copyright law. I was seated at a table that included a publisher. During the "down time" between speakers, we had a discussion about books and DRM.
    
    I gave him the following question: "If someone were to invent a device that would allow blind people to read books - say they put it over a page, and it translates the characters to braille on the fly - there is no copying involved, and nobody else would be able to read it. Would you be in favour of such a device, because it would increase the market for your books?"
    
    His answer: "No. Such a device should be outlawed because it means that the manufacturer would be making money off my work, and I wouldn't be getting any of the profit."
    
    "But you would be making more money - you wouldn't have to translate and print separate braille editions for blind people." I said.
    
    "Doesn't matter - if I wanted blind people to read my books, I would print a braille version."
    
    They're just petty, batshit-fucking-insane assholes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris-Mouse (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:40am
  
  Re:
  The complete lock on the means of production that the copywrong industry has had has allowed them to ignore economic laws for so long that they no longer feel economics applies to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  The copyright industries do not have customers, the only have consumers who are out to steal them blind!! :-P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
saulgoode (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:44am

Seems somewhat displaced to have the Patent and Trademark Office engaging in blockage of a copyright issue. Did Maria Palante's check get lost in the mail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:50am

When your actions make movie villians looks good...
So I'm curious, how many puppies must a delegate be willing to punt before they are considered twisted enough to be able to, with a straight face, sabotage efforts to help the disabled?

Honestly, you could probably take a survey among prison inmates and have a clear majority of them say how screwed up this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:10am
  
  Re: When your actions make movie villians looks good...
  Speaking of movie villains, remember that animated Superman movie where Lex Luthor invented a cure for muscular dystrophy, then converted it into an ongoing treatment so he'd make more money from it?
  
  I'm just wondering, are the movie and TV industries in question LexCorp subsidiaries? Because then this would all make so much more sense...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A nonny mouse, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:08am

over the best interests of the blind and the deaf

Just wait until they see and hear about this!

oh, right...

(Sorry, so very sorry)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power Guy Rules (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:15am

Copyright laws - they don't get it.
This part:
"One major objective of the US delegation is to exclude persons who are deaf. Another is to limit the exceptions to text, and exclude any audiovisual content or related rights. "

NDA already won the case against Netflix due to ADA. Still, they have so much to learn.

See the comic about hearing people who are dumb.
http://disabilitynews.com/comics/deaf-and-dumb-hearing-and-dumb/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:38pm
  
  Re: Copyright laws - they don't get it.
  Some of us know its all a plot...
  
  https://xkcd.com/315/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:15am

This will promote the sciences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:19am
  
  Re:
  That guy who speaks about the Earth being 9000 years old and sits on the Science & Tech Committee will be Promoting the newly built Creationist Amusement Park.Rep.Idiot Paul Braun is our new science leader.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  Yes, this will promote the silences...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:20am

Medusa?
... a treaty rather than a softer non-blinding recommendation ...

Personally I would be very much against a blinding recommendation, although I can't really imagine what a recommendation that actually triggers loss of eyesight would look like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:31am
  
  Re: Medusa?
  When it makes you facepalm so hard that you detach your retinas...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: Medusa?
  In my mind, the biggest problem is not what kind of deal gets done, but the seemingly serious discrimination against a certain disability. I am not sure a hole in IPR-protection is what is really needed. Seems like a much better idea to help in the other side of the circle. Let us call it healthcare!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gleepman, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:35am

You guys are looking at this from a RATIONALE point of view when you should be looking at it from a media exec's point of view. Since allowing something to happen is the same thing as encouraging it to happen (like they've argued in every copyright infringement case ever) then their point of view becomes clear. If they allow blind and deaf people to read/listen to things they like, then that's the same as encouraging others to go around blinding/deafening people. What they're really saying is that they're AGAINST people who blind and deafen other people and they're showing this very reasonable viewpoint by making the lives of blind/deaf people as miserable as possible so it discourages people from becoming blind or deaf.

See...they're just misunderstood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:54am
  
  Re:
  So...
  
  The best way to fix this is to beat the media execs until they're either deaf or blind?
  
  ...
  
  BRILLIANT!
  
  I'll bring the 2x4s!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'll even take off my glasses so it's more like a pinata!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:41am

good ol' USA. discriminate against the disabled again. they should remember, a lot of those disabled are veterans that got that way fighting to protect the country from the arse holes that promote this discrimination!! everyone that is siding with this crap, from the Government, to the entertainment industries, to the public should bloody well be ashamed of themselves! they also need to remember, that one day they could become disabled and need some help!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gleepman, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:57am

Can anyone else imagine Chris Dodd and the MPAA execs doing this to psych themselves up before doing an interview?

Chris Dodd: Activate Inter-locks! Dyna-therms connected. Infra-cells up! Mega-thrusters are go!

All MPAA execs in unison: Let's go Lobbying Force!

Chris Dodd: Form feet and mouth! Form arms and head! And I'll form...the ASS!

Later...

Chris Dodd: Oh no, they're not buying our Lies of Justice and Deceptions of Honor. We need something stronger! Form Blazing Copyright Stick! (FYI: I now have a trademark on the term "Blazing Copyright Stick" I also may have a copyright...stick. Get it?!)

Sorry, watching Voltron atm...legally...on netflix...which I paid for...with money...US dollars...for netflix...just to be clear...please don't send the FBI after me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:11am
  
  Re:
  Dear Mr. Gleepman
  
  As the attorneys representing Voltron, you are ordered to cease and desist any future commenting in this style. A DMCA take down notice will be issued to the TechDirt administrator.
  
  Thank you for your cooperation in advance. You may settle this misunderstanding for $3,000 or face statutory damages of up to $150,000.
  
  Have a nice day.
  
  The Law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, & How
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:15am
  
  Re:
  Thanks for ruining my childhood...
  let me return the favor...
  
  http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/391838-ruined-childhood
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:58am

How nice...
and how very very surprising. :-/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bsod, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:28am

netflix
isn't this about hollywood wanting to kill netflix, since that agreement that netflix made that they will subtitle all their films... cant be getting free subtitles now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: netflix
  exactly
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:16am
  
  Re: netflix
  isn't this about hollywood wanting to kill netflix, since
  that agreement that netflix made that they will subtitle all their films... cant bother to create subtitles, cant allow anyone to make their own free subtitles now either
  
  ftfy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:33am

The copyright maximalists have one attitude, we buy copyright from the creators and this gives us the right to totally control all use of the content thereafter. Also all floss of revenue is due to piracy, which includes self publishing and publishers that do not belong to their associations.
How long before the request a law that give them a monopoly on publishing, so that they can continue in business?
Also do they get on so well with the politicians because control of information is a common objective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:55am

Has anyone ever considered the dumbest possible answer?

The RIAA doesn't care about the deaf because they can't hear the music.
The MPAA doesn't care about the blind because they can't see the movie.

They consider them to not be potential revenue, and doing anything that might let them be revenue might possibly open the door to other people seeing or hearing something without the cartels approval and payment. That would be much to dangerous to allow to happen in their imaginations.

It sounds simple and stupid... so it's possibly right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:19am
  
  Re:
  Possibly. In fact, that explanation would cover the usual short-sighted and silly approach to most things those organisations do.
  
  The RIAA may not care about the deaf, but they really should care about the blind because they can not only hear the music but are unable to appreciate many other forms of entertainment. The MPAA may not care about the blind, but they should be concerned about the deaf customers they have. Ditto the publishing industry, who can reach both groups if they allow the correct technology.
  
  But... realistically this is about the same thing most of their wrong-headed moves tend to be about - control. With these concessions, they're being asked to partially cede control of their product. Even if doing so would mean more profit, they don't want to do that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    One only needs to look at the uproar over what was done to the rental version release of UP. A movie with a character wearing a hearing aid and they "forgot" to put in the closed captions for the hearing impaired.
    
    Part of the reason is the fear that people are just ripping rental discs, and then won't buy the regular release.
    So they make the rental version less useful to consumers, because that'll just drive consumers to buy the full version... rather than be pissed off and find something else on the shelf.
    
    They still can't write contracts that cover worldwide rights to the bits and pieces of their films, so they end up delaying things... then blame piracy for low sales rather than we made them wait 6 months longer than everyone else and still wanted to charge a premium price.
    
    It really does boil down to a war on consumers because they imagine what MIGHT be possible, rather than making sure the consumer enjoys the product.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      then blame piracy for low sales rather than we made them wait 6 months longer than everyone else and still wanted to charge a premium price.
      Surely Sir you lie! They are the very paragons of timeliness and coherent release schedules!
      
      For example, I'm sure the fact that Hoodwinked Too hasn't had a UK release date hasn't encouraged "piracy" of it at all. And I'm sure that if they do release it the fact that most of the target audience will have forgotten that the first one was fantastic won't affect sales of what I've heard is a rather more mediocre 2nd effort either.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well they do have to sail it there on their fleet of galleons past the sea monster drawn on the map...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's not that they don't care, that is another one of those wonderful red herrings and misleading arguments that people kick around.
    
    The truth is more simple than that: They don't want yet another picking away at their rights to choose how they do business.
    
    Of course, the piracy apologists will just ignore the implications on piracy here. Not a big deal, right?
    
    The "they don't care" argument is like the last stand before you start calling them names, because you really know the arguments in general are pretty weak.
    
    As a side note, I love the incredibly biased source on this article. One sided doesn't even start to cover it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you're willing to safeguard your rights at the behest of the disabled, and you're proud to admit it, I'd say that damages your business far more than any "picking away" that (of all people) the blind and deaf can do.
      
      Go on, then, tell us how providing for the blind and deaf will kill the industry, since we're clearly all so ignorant. Filthy sight and hearing pirates.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How is that working out for them?
      
      We don't want them adding more rights to the monopoly rights we granted them for a LIMITED time, but they keep going anyways.
      
      If they cared, they would find a way to reach all consumers. Instead they cower in the dark terrified that someone might see it without them getting paid.
      
      I apologize for nothing... not even calling you a fuckwit.
      Fuckwit.
      
      You should take a refresher course in shilling, if not for my desire to use the word fuckwit today you'd have not been worth any effort.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 1:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "They don't want yet another picking away at their rights to choose how they do business."
      
      ...and we don't want corporations picking away at our rights because they don't think they've got enough of our money yet. This is especially true when they're trampling over the rights of people who are left with literally no other choice through no fault of their own - without this exemption they are forced to break the law simply to read a book or watch a movie.
      
      Guess, what? Give me the choice of protecting a corporation's "right" to profit and a disabled person's right to access and participate in our culture, I'm not going to be on the corporate side. Especially since I think that the real danger presented by such an exemption is minimal.
      
      "Of course, the piracy apologists will just ignore the implications on piracy here."
      
      What implications? The DRM is already broken for illegal uses and the pirates don't notice it. It's only the legal customers that DRM screws over on a regular basis - this is just another example. If you're so concerned about piracy, stop giving people a legitimate reason to break the law - such as allowing blind people access to books. Only in your amoral world is that even remotely acceptable and only in your fantasy world would that actually prevent any piracy.
      
      "The "they don't care" argument is like the last stand before you start calling them names, because you really know the arguments in general are pretty weak."
      
      The argument is that people who have no ability to access the content they legally buy due to a disability should be allowed said access rather than being blocked because the **AAs think they're thieves.
      
      If you think that's weak, I hope for your sake you're never in the position to require such help. Just another money grubbing bastard willing to sell his soul to get another dollar in his pocket.
      
      "As a side note, I love the incredibly biased source on this article. One sided doesn't even start to cover it."
      
      ...and your link to an unbiased article that corrects whatever mistakes you think are presented here is... where?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:19am

Corporations are people
"Now, do you really want to argue that First Amendment protection should not extend to corporate speech? "

"Corporations are people my friend." - Mitt Romney, fully supported by the USSC.

Do you really want to argue this position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:47am
  
  Re: Corporations are people
  "Corporations are people my friend." - Mitt Romney, fully supported by the USSC.
  
  Are you entirely unable to distinguish between Mitt Romney's soundbite, and the considered opinion of the Supreme Court?
  
  What the court actually said:
  
  � The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations
  
  � This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech.
  
  �
  
  You would do well to read NAACP v Button (1963). One of the arguments popular in that era ran along the lines:
  
  � Only literate people are entitled to vote
  
  � Negroes are uniformly illiterate
  
  Do you really want to overturn NAACP v Button? Does Mr Obama want to overturn NAACP v Button?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re: Corporations are people
    The court REALLY dropped the ball with Citizen's United.
    
    Seriously...
    
    I live in a non-swing state and I've seen so many ads thanks to the Koch brothers that I want to find them and beat them senseless.
    
    I can't even IMAGINE how bad it is for people in swing states.
    
    And, allowing corporations to have the same protections in speech as people...
    
    That's called fascism, Comrade.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
      Okay, now you're full of shit. Oligopolies are a path to a fascist society, but they are not, in and of themselves, fascist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
      allowing corporations to have the same protections in speech as people
      
      Have you read, for example, the famous case of New York Times v Sullivan (1964) ?
      
      Was that case wrongly decided? You might be surprised to learn that Justice Scalia would (probably) vote to overturn Sullivan. You can dig up a speech where he argues against the Sullivan standard, and states his opinion that it should be left up to the individual states.
      
      Are you a states-rightist?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        "Are you a states-rightist?"
        
        I am against anyone, business or government alike, that allows the large and powerful to trample the rights of the many just because of money.
        
        That's my position on this, that's why I am against Citizen's United and why it needs to be overturned.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        why I am against Citizen's United and why it needs to be overturned.
        
        Do you want to overturn NAACP v Button? At heart, that's a simple yes or no question �although you are invited to amplify your answer.
        � NAACP v Button: Rightly or wrongly decided?
        
        Do you want to overturn New York Times v Sullivan? Again, yes or no. But you may state the grounds of your reasoning.
        
        � New York Times v Sullivan: Right or wrong?
        
        If you do not wish to overturn those precedents, then should the law be applied to all�without regard to the viewpoint expressed? Or should just speech against Hillary Clinton be singled out for specific regulation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        NAACP v Button - I don't think illiterate people should be barred from voting, though I wonder if they know who they're voting for if they can't read.
        
        As for the other one, I'll need to read after I get back from work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        Here's a hint: It's The Pentagon Papers.
        
        And as for my opinion, I think that both got there for the right reasons. This is not like Roe vs. Wade for example, where the right decision was reached, IMO, but with bad reasoning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        Here's a hint: It's The Pentagon Papers.
        
        No. New York Times v Sullivan (1964) is not the Pentagon Papers case.
        
        The Pentagon Papers case is New York Times v United States (1971). The Pentagon Papers case does uphold the continued vitality of the Blackstonian bar against prior restraints�as argued by Adams and Hamiliton. But Jefferson and Madison did not argue against the First Amendment bar on prior restraints�they only argued that the American conception of free speech and free press went farther than Blackstone.
        
        Still, if New York Times Co v Sullivan must fall because corporations have no First Amendment rights, then equally must fall New York Times Co v United States.
        
        You want to knock 'em both down in one broad stroke?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        Possibly. But then, I'm of the "Tear it to fucking shreds and rebuild" school of legal reform.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        Having looked at the case...
        
        Yeah, the public has a right to know what's going on with politicians and celebrities.
        
        Rights of the many > rights of the few.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        Well, if you look in that wall-of-legal citations that I posted earlier from Citizen's United, both New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and New York Times Co. v. United States are cited in Belloti as support for the proposition that
        
        The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.
        
        Now, is that proposition wrong?
        
        Should the New York Times Company, a for-profit corporation, have no rights guaranteed under the First Amendment?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        NAACP v Button - I don't think illiterate people should be barred from voting
        
        OK. In your opinion, we should let the illiterates vote. But what about letting the illiterates serve as president?
        
        Will Rogers (1879 - 1935) used to quip:
        
        When I was a young boy, they used to tell me that anyone could grow up to be president.... Now that I've gotten older�I'm beginning to believe it!
        
        You comfortable with an illiterate as president?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 1:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
        You comfortable with an illiterate as president?
        Might be an improvement over the usual sock puppets...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re: Corporations are people
    I'm sorry... color me stupid, but what the fuck does this ruling about membership in an organization and the ability of the state to see that membership have to do with the ability of corporations and unions to swamp our speech with their more 'equal' speech?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people
      what the fuck does this ... have to do with the ability of corporations
      
      The proposition that the Citizen's United opinion cites Button for is that:
      
      This [First Amendment] protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech
      
      Quoting from the opinion in Button:
      
      The NAACP was formed in 1909 and incorporated under New York law as a nonprofit membership corporation in 1911.
      
      �.�.�.�.
      
      We reverse the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. We hold that the activities of the NAACP ... shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
      
      (Emphasis added.)
      
      If you hold that no corporation has First Amendment rights, then it inexorably follows that the activities of the NAACP must therefore not be �modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments�.
      
      NAACP is a corporation. Should it have First Amendment rights, as extended under the Fourteenth Amendment against state abridgment?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:24am

Help keep the government hands off the internet! Vote Libertarian if after you do your research you agree. It wouldn't hurt to "Like" him on facebook either. Thank you

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/internet-and-technology
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryj ohnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:21am

Wow it straight up says they are trying to make those big publishers happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:08am

Well, it's not like the disabled are real people, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIlton Freewater, 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:25pm

Coompletely off topic ...
But did you guys see this bombshell yet?

http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-independent-expert-is-riaas-former-lobbying-firm-121022/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:48pm
  
  Re: Coompletely off topic ...
  Why yes... yes I did.
  But mostly because I gave Ernesto the tip, I also submitted it to Boingboing and Cory picked it up, I submitted here as well, and rounded by day off by doing a little write up for Fightcopyrighttrolls.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philly Bob, 23 Oct 2012 @ 11:34am

Movies? Can't see them...
Music? Can't hear it...
Why should we give a damn about them?

-RIAA & MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]