MPAA: Oh, Of Course We Want To Help The Blind Read More... Just As Long As You Don't Touch Copyright
from the nice-try dept
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.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.
5. Avoid addressing extraneous copyright issues not directly related to creating greater access to published works for the blind and print disabled.
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....
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, exceptions
Companies: mpaa, nfb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In other words don't you dare use the excuse of "it's for the blind" to change our efforts in bullying people with current copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Chris Dodd was a politician. The MPAA doesn't need to "learn" anything... they just buy politicians that already have expertise in double speak and lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The troll seems to desperately want a substantive suggestion, so I have one.
If the troll wants to see the real dipshit here, s/he should look in a mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We should let blind people read books.
I know, I know, it sounds so crazy it just might work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* facepalm *
Oh look, here you are.
...idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, except where he mentions about three or four times that the MPAA should stop blocking what is already on the table for this treaty. That sounds like a substantive suggestion to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My rights empower others.
Accommodations for the blind are nothing more than showing some respect for MY personal property rights.
The "solution" here is for politicians to listen to something other than corporate lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stupid troll is stupid. The solution to the problem is for the MPAA to shut the hell up and let the treaty that's been on the table for years move forward. The treaty is the solution, and the MPAA is blocking it, which Mike has very clearly explained numerous times.
Your inability understanding is not Mike's or TD's problem, it's entirely your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've gone blind from masnicking.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where arrogance meets ignorance to conspire what they'll do with someone else's 100 million dollar movie.
06:26:36[h-677-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've gone blind from masnicking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've gone blind from masnicking.
I'll gladly die for my right to be what I want, say what I want, and do what I want. And I'll gladly die so that others can enjoy those liberties also.
After:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You want me to give up a little bit of my artificial monopoly so that some blind people can read a book? No fucking way!
Land of the brave? Home of the free? HAH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've gone blind from masnicking.
If there is no copyright, there is no piracy and no infringement. What are the goals again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've gone blind from masnicking.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie does not make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see these days as
"the last Hollywood CEO strangled with the guts of the last copyright lawyer..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I read something from the RIAA/MPAA . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much do the blind read, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much do the blind read, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much do the blind read, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah right!
Can't let that happen now can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really are a lying shitbag aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appeasement and other forms of grovelling...
You can't necessarily take things on face value.
Perhaps "appeasement" is the best term for it.
Anything else is likely to trigger the wrath of the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously they're hoping that the National Federation for the Blind...
( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
...Don't see it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be accurate, that is but a part of what has been on the table for quite some time, and it is the other parts that have proven problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real question is: why isn't the NFB talking with the publishers?
It would be great if the NFB were open to detailed discussions with the American publsihers on the topic. They have done it in the US before with the Chafee amendment. Why don't they do it again at the international level?
Publishers and visually impaired organisations are doing a lot together to improve access. Why so many decalrations and so little direct talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The treaty is good in that, well, its good thinking. The problem is that it does not go far enough to protect the legitimate Fair Use Rights of Blind users and enablers. The slippery slope word “exceptions” is used too prominently.
There needs to be slipped into the treaty the term “Blind Use Rights” to further cement the expanded Fair Use Rights. This solid wording would help provide some protection from further erosion from the out of control eternal copyright monopolies.
While we are at it renaming 'copyright' into 'copyexception' wold be nice too... (hehehe) Because it was originally designed to be a short term (14-28 yr) exception to the greater needs of Public Domain Rights and Fair Use Rights.
Who would even believe anything the MPAA says or does anyway? Isn't this “joint statement” just another cigarette sales ad lie? Even the direct interpretation of their actions and words are “our selfish monopolistic needs are greater than a whole cultural group of Blind handicapped?”
The whole thing sounds disingenuous in every way. Am a bit cynical. How much of a donation the the National Federation For The Blind allowed the MPAA to slither up next to the NFB and make these “joint” statements? Who really wrote the “joint” statement anyway? Exact wording is of vital importance especially in treaties.
For the MPAA to basically take advantage of a legitimate Blind activist support group is a painful thing to hear about... Isn't this just some plan to just use the NFB as a platform for their own ends?
Its scary the the MPAA wants to rewrite the treaty in their own way. Surely they would waste all the good work done so far if even one of their sentences end up in the final draft. The MPAA has already stated that they don't mean to allow ANY benefits at all and are already AGAINST the treaty entirely. Nobody lets their pet shark swim with their kids. Its just not done.
Its not great that the MPAA is trying to schmooze its way past the NFB with what is/was likely bad intent on their part. In cases like this; One just has to realize that groups like the MPAA will NOT be any help. Almost surely the opposite. Its like warning your kids to stay away from bullies, drug pushers in shiny cars and shark infested waters.
Somehow the flashy bling bling bearing special-interest-group lobbyists would make any parent/citizen/voter cry about wayward money addicted politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]