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

from the to-paraphrase-the-who dept

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.

Filed Under: blind, broadband, cynicism, deaf, disabled, fast lane, lobbyists, net neutrality
Companies: verizon

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

from the a-serious-problem dept

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.

Filed Under: audiovisual materials, blind, copyright, deaf, exceptions, fair use, treaty for the blind, wipo
Companies: mpaa

EU & US Negotiators Looking To Hold Blind & Deaf Access Rights Hostage To Get A New ACTA/SOPA

from the sad dept

We already talked about how US officials have been working against a treaty to allow more access to copyrighted works for the disabled, but the latest report from Jamie Love highlights an even more nefarious part of the strategy. To hold the agreement hostage in order to backdoor in certain elements of ACTA/SOPA. This is mainly being led by the EU, but with support from the US. And the main part is putting lots of red tape around any exceptions -- and tying it to more standardized enforcement, which is what ACTA was really all about:

The European Union primarily, but with some backing from the US government, is holding blind people's access hostage in and effort to introduce new global enforcement norms for copyright. If you look at most copyright exceptions in most countries, the system works as follows. If the exception applies, an activity is not considered infringement. If you do something that is not protected by the exception, you are infringing, and all sorts of bad things can happen, depending upon your national laws for infringement, which include both criminal and civil sanctions. That is how the US exceptions work for blind persons, and that's how nearly all national exceptions work for blind persons. But here at WIPO, the EU wants page after page of detailed regulation of anyone who uses an exception. The expanding verbiage of the agreement is almost entirely about introducing ACTA and SOPA like enforcement provisions into this agreement.

We've already seen the EU try to backdoor ACTA provisions in elsewhere, so it should come as little surprise that it would also seek to abuse a treaty to help the disabled to get to the same point as well. Shameful, but not surprising.

Another report on the meetings, from David Hammerstein at the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) goes into more detail on the EU's moves during the negotiations:

Instead of trying to help one of the world´s most culturally disadvantaged groups the EU´s copyright specialists guided by Commissioner of Internal Market Michel Barnier are busy launching violent preemptive strikes against the possibility of a clear, exception to copyright for the non-profit production and distribution of works formatted for visually impaired persons.

In Geneva this week the EU made one negative proposal after another to block a global agreement that would greatly improve access to culture for the visually impaired. All of them have been rejected by the organizations defending blind and disabled persons rights. Most of them are “copy and paste” proposals from the publishing industry´s wish list. Not one EU proposal this week in Geneva was to facilitate the right to read of disabled persons as guaranteed by international law. Not one member of the EU´s delegation was a human rights or disability expert; all were hard-line copyright apologists.

Basically, they seem to see this as a war, where any exception is seen as "giving in" on copyright. This is insane. This is not about rational minds looking for the proper calibration of the law, or understanding the real impacts of the law. This appears to be about pure copyright religion, where "more" must be better, and any exception, no matter how reasonable, is seen as a sin. Shameful.

Filed Under: access, acta, blind, deaf, sopa

US Steadfast In Its Stand For Publishers Against The Disabled

from the bad-news dept

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...

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

4Chan Reroutes Promotional Contest, Lines Taylor Swift Up For A Concert At The Horace Mann School For The Deaf

from the not-your-personal-army-but-quite-possibly-your-personal-botnet dept

Hey, various musicians, celebrities and sponsors! How would you like a swift lesson in Crowdsourcing Your Ignominy? What's that? You'd rather not? Oh... I see...

OK. I'll pass that alo--

LESSON IN PROGRESS........
PLEASE STAND BY

Lessons (un)learned to date:

• Time Magazine says "Vote for Person of the Year" and opens the polls up to 4chan's robot army without so much as a captcha to slow them down.

• Cuban rapper Pitbull teams up with Big Retail (Wal-Mart) to push energizing breath strips in the store receiving the most "Likes." Boston Phoenix writer teams with army of goons to send Pitbull (and the writer himself) to Kodiak, Alaska.

• Edgy beverage company invites internet users to name new MTN Dew flavor and is somehow shocked the suggestions contain a mixture of grotesque sexual imagery and Hitler references. Local favorite "Methamphetagreen" fails to place in the top 10.

Enter corporate sponsors Chegg (textbooks) and Papa Johns Pizza (um... pizza), a marketing force deemed nigh invulnerable after drafting country music sweetheart Taylor Swift. The plan? Open up the polls to The Internet and allow It to choose which lucky school will be receiving $10,000 and a concert starring Ms. Swift.

Precautions were taken. Entrants could only vote once per day and had to log in through Facebook (and "Like" Taylor Swift) in order to select a school. Voters could gain extra votes by "Liking" other sponsors' pages and buying Taylor Swift's latest single. The polls were opened and, as is often the case, members of 4chan were the first several thousand people in line.

Shortly thereafter, a certain school shot out to an insurmountable lead. Pack your ASL interpreter, Taylor. You're headed to Horace Mann School for the Deaf!

Like most things 4chan reroutes, it makes you laugh before you realize how heartless you sound LOLing away at a potential bunch of deaf kids. ("Potential" meaning Swift has the option to turn down the winning school. But she wouldn't, would she?) Of course, there's some honest laughter to be had at the decidedly less cruel thought that Swift's music is best left unheard.

Horace Mann had cleared 50K votes as of last Friday night, so it's unlikely that (barring any sponsor interference) another school will suddenly outpace it. This isn't necessarily the most heartless thing 4chan has conjured up. If nothing else, Horace Mann will be receiving $10,000. There's also the good possibility that Swift will play a concert at the school. The effort won't be completely wasted, as this Redditor points out:

I get the humor but those deaf kids are going to fucking love it! Most deaf can hear a certain degree with residual hearing, hearing aids and CI's. Not to mention those deaf kids who are profoundly deaf and don't wear any assistive devices will enjoy the visual stimulation of the show.

So, there's that. The music will still be appreciated on some level by the attendees. Oddly enough, this looks like another PR win by the time all is said and done. Swift will play a well-received concert at Horace Mann. Five schools will receive $10,000. Visuals will be stimulated. And somehow, 4chan will have inadvertently trolled up a massively good deed, adding yet another incongruous layer to its mythology.

And, on the one-in-a-million chance that Swift turns this gig down, I humbly suggest these gentlemen fill in.

Filed Under: 4chan, deaf, horace mann, internet voting, taylor swift, trolls

Wasabi Fire Alarms For The Deaf

from the now-there's-an-idea dept

It's always fascinating to see technology come up with unique solutions to certain problems. For people who are deaf, it makes sense that a traditional fire alarm might not work, since they wouldn't hear the alarm in order to escape. So, if I were tasked with coming up with a special alarm for the deaf, I'd most likely target one of the other senses. I would probably go with sight or touch as the first two, creating fire alarms that light up and flash or perhaps bang or shake something so the person would feel the alarm. However, Boing Boing notes that some researchers in Japan went after a different sense: smell. They've created a horseradish fire alarm (I'm assuming it's actually a wasabi smell, but since the two are effectively the same, perhaps it doesn't matter). In tests, the wasabi smell woke up 13 of 14 test subjects in less than two minutes. What's not clear, however, is how much more effective the smell of wasabi is than, say, the smell of smoke from the actual fire. Also, what happens if there's already a strong wasabi smell in the house? If I'm deaf, I think I'd prefer a flashing light.

Filed Under: deaf, fire alarms, wasabi