[Nfb-hi] FW: Your Daily Depression.

[Milton Ota]

Poisoning the Treaty for the Blind

Jim Fruchterman

Huffington Post, May 7, 2013

The Obama Administration is turning its back on people with 
disabilities--and I'm outraged. I'm an engineer and social entrepreneur, 
trying to make the
world a better place for people with disabilities, and I rarely step 
into the role of vocal advocate. But when you see behavior that is so 
unjust, you
just have to speak out against it.  Here is what is happening.

For years, international negotiations have been moving forward on what 
many have come to know as the "
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fruchterman/visually-impaired-rights_b_18
20365.html>
Treaty for the Blind." The goal of the treaty is to make it possible for 
people who are blind, or have other print disabilities, to get access to 
the books
they need for education, employment and inclusion in society--no matter 
where they live. It's something we already do, with great success, in 
the United
States. Early versions of the treaty embodied this principle, and in 
addition, would ease the international transfer of accessible books for 
people with
disabilities.

In the end, a good treaty would mean real progress, and allow accessible 
books to reach millions of disabled people in other countries. Extending 
our own
principles--that should be the United States' negotiating position.

Now, the progress made is all in jeopardy. Private interests have been 
hard at work to insert poison pills in the treaty, such as provisions 
that make
the treaty either unpalatable for many countries to sign on to it or too 
complex to implement. It's a terrible case of private interest trumping 
the public
good.

In the last few months we've seen the trade delegations from the United 
States and the European Union,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-mpaa-disney-and-blind_b_314666
5.html>
at the behest of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), 
suddenly changed course and start advocating for positions that are 
contrary to current
U.S. law--positions that would be hard for me to imagine passing our 
Congress. It has gotten to the point where many observers of the 
negotiations, being
held at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, 
believe that it's turning into a "Treaty to Protect Rightsholders from 
the Blind!"


Why does this matter? Because at the rate we're going, we'll end up with 
a Treaty that doesn't help the blind, but instead advances the 
intellectual property
agenda of the MPAA. It would be an absolute shame for this to happen.

The MPAA has claimed, in a public statement, that they are only seeking "
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-dodd/mpaa-supports-meaningful_b_3141781
.html>
balance." Are you as confused as I am about that? One of the most 
powerful industries on the planet, which already has loads of treaties 
and laws protecting
its interests, needs to find balance against some of the most 
economically and information disadvantaged people on the planet? 
Especially since the Treaty
for the Blind, if it were written to actually help the blind, would 
comply with all of those treaties and laws. And, that's not even 
mentioning that fact
that the MPAA has already gotten their content excluded from the Treaty 
years ago. That's what the MPAA calls "balance"?

I feel quite strongly about this because of how well a balanced 
copyright law can work, and does work, right here in the United States. 
Our Bookshare library
is allowed to scan just about any book needed by a person who is blind 
or print-disabled: we now have 190,000 of the most in-demand books and 
textbooks
needed in accessible forms like braille, large print, and audio output. 
Today, as new books are produced, they are "born digital." We have the 
policies
and we have the technology to make sure that, as Bookshare's General 
Manager Betsy Beaumon says, "All materials that are born digital are 
born accessible."
We are at a point where accessibility can and should be the default mode 
for all books.

So, in the MPAA's "balanced" world, a system that works well in the 
United States--and helps hundreds of thousands of people--should be 
advocated against
by our trade delegation? Huh?

To give you an idea of the poison pills being advocated for by the MPAA, 
publishers, and now the U.S. trade delegation, I've outlined the most 
notable
ones below:
    * Commercial Availability Requirements. This poison pill says that 
if a book is commercially available in an accessible format, it can't be 
provided
by a library to a person with a disability. This is equivalent to 
walking into a public library and finding padlocks on all the books with 
a note that
says: "If you want to read it, buy it." With a commercial availability 
requirement, libraries like Bookshare, with hundreds of thousands of 
accessible
books available to people with print disabilities, would have to go 
through such complex bureaucracy that we couldn't afford to serve people 
outside the
U.S. under a Treaty. The World Blind Union's lead negotiator
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/20/in-un-talks-on-treaty-for-the-blind-conc
ern-about-heavy-focus-on-rightholders-interests/>
pointed out how these provisions would, in practice, stop Bookshare from 
serving blind people in India.

    * The "Three-Step Test" Chokehold. The
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test>
three-step test is part of international copyright law meant to allow 
countries to reflect their own values in their copyright exceptions. The 
United States'
copyright exception for the blind is a shining example of something that 
complies with the three-step test. So what are the negotiators trying to 
do? They
are working to alter the very meaning of the three-step test, changing 
the language of the test to the point of which it will put a chokehold 
on a country's
ability to make broader exceptions to copyrights. Which leads to #3.

    * Conflicts with American Law. Simply put--the US won't sign it. Our 
trade delegation is now advocating for a Treaty that would require, if 
ratified,
the U.S. Congress to gut our model copyright exception. Essentially, the 
Treaty would be too poisonous for the U.S. to swallow. It's clear to 
everyone
that if we couldn't even get the Convention on the Rights of People with 
Disabilities, which was pretty much identical to our own Americans with 
Disabilities
Act, ratified by the Senate, a poisoned Treaty for the Blind has no 
chance of ratification.

What it all boils down to is this: Content owners, such as the MPAA, are 
advocating for stronger, more clearly defined protections...for 
themselves. That's
their version of balance--trying to use a Treaty for the Blind as a 
tactic to advance their broader agenda. And it's shameful that instead 
of being honest
about their intentions, they instead
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-dodd/mpaa-supports-meaningful_b_3141781
.html>
accuse groups like the World Blind Union--who are pretty much focused on 
making the world better for blind people--of trying to "undermine the 
global marketplace."

Americans who care about accessibility need to let the Obama 
Administration know they don't want a poisoned Treaty!

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fruchterman/poisoning-the-treaty-for-_b_3
225181.html>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fruchterman/poisoning-the-treaty-for-_b_32
25181.html

Now. Told'ya!

 

 June 26, 2012 - 11:41 am - by Ed Driscoll      Frank Bruni of the New York
Times has second thoughts about the man his paper was and is deeply in the
tank for:

While most politicians write their stories once they've laid some claim to
the spotlight and are already operating in its skeptical glare, Obama did so
years in advance, setting the stage long before he strode onto it. The first
edition of "Dreams From My Father," a framing device for the campaigns and
speeches to come, was published in 1995. He wasn't even an Illinois state
senator yet.

It was an act of careful and considered self-definition, and with the
publication of David Maraniss's new biography of Obama earlier this month,
we learned just how careful and considered. Obama tailored characters to
suit his themes and invented a few details of his family's past, saying that
a step-grandfather was killed in combat against Dutch troops in Indonesia
when he really, according to Maraniss, died in a fall from a chair as he
hung drapes.

One of the most widely cited observations in Maraniss's biography, "Barack
Obama: The Story," is that he had a "determination to avoid life's traps."
He refused to let circumstances box him in; craved room to maneuver; kept
his options open. In college he floated between cultures and political and
social groups, studiously avoiding commitment. In the Illinois State Senate,
he stood out in part for the frequency with which he voted "present" rather
than yea or nay. He wouldn't be pinned or pigeonholed.

And now? He's beholden to lawmakers' whims, buffeted by global winds, as
much a spectator as an agent of the most important developments around him,
a leader of the free world who follows the news like the rest of us. Against
Obama's wishes and will, his attorney general is investigated and excoriated
by a House panel. His jobs bill languishes. Egypt charts a once unexpected
course, electing an Islamist president. The Syrian government pursues a
bloody crackdown against its people, ignoring the Obama administration's
protests.

At times he looks dazed, and flails. To focus his economic message, he gave
an unfocused 54-minute speech on the apparent theory that the more sentences
in the mix, the greater the odds of a keeper.

But damn, aren't his trousers sharp? That was all it took to sway at least
one of Bruni's fellow Timesmen.

Meanwhile, as Jim Geraghty of National Review Online's Campaign Spot blog
writes today in his Morning Jolt email, "Every Once in a While, a Lefty Sees
the Same Obama We See:"

Every once in a while, I begin to think that a big division in American life
is not merely between the Left and the Right but the Informed and the
Uninformed.

The lefties who cheer the individual mandate might have a worldview that is
deeply disturbing to us, in its view of unlimited government authority and
power, but at least they have a worldview. There are millions of Americans
whose view on the individual mandate will change depending on how you phrase
the question. Many Americans' views on health care are basically, "I should
be given as much as I want, whenever I want, and someone else should pay for
it," and they never think about it beyond that.

Liberal idealists and conservative idealists at least have a common passion,
while the infuriating low-information voters who will decide this election
cannot be bothered to pay attention long enough to make an informed
decision.

And sometimes when you read a liberal idealist, you find them starting to
echo some of your own themes.

I give you Matt Stoller, deeply disappointed lefty:

Jokes show how someone really sees the world, and the joke I'm thinking of
is one [President Obama] made during a speech in March 2009, when the
revelations of AIG's massive retention bonuses became public. It had been
less than two months since Obama's inauguration, but the major policy
framework of the administration - the bailouts - had been laid down. The AIG
bonus scandal was outrageous to the public, a symbol of tens of billions of
taxpayer dollars being funneled to an arrogant corporation that had helped
destroy the economy.

Barack Obama had stepped up to the lectern to deliver a stern rebuke to AIG
executives who had taken bonuses with taxpayer money. Obama talked of the
outrage of an irresponsible company, and how his administration would do
everything within its power to get the money back. But a few minutes in, he
coughed, slightly, choking a bit, as his mouth was a bit dry. But after he
coughed, he stopped, and reflected on the gesture with a joke. "I'm choked,
choked with anger", he said. Obama chuckled. Reporters laughed. And it was
funny, really funny. Because everyone in the room knew that Obama wasn't
actually angry about the AIG bonuses, and never intended to do anything
about it. No one there was angry about the bonuses, and everyone knew
nothing would happen to AIG executives. The House would pass bills, which
would die in the Senate. The only people angry were Americans at large, who
could not believe that their government worked for Wall Street. So the joke
was funny, ironic, cool. But the moment wasn't right for it, because this
was a serious time for outrage - so Obama quickly reverted to form, and the
teleprompter took over. . . .

Yves wrote about this narrative a few weeks ago, when she pointed out his
career in the Illinois state Senate was based on working for billionaire
developers to destroy poor neighborhoods. Few really gets who he is, at his
core, and almost no one is willing to publicly point it out. There are some
who went to law school with him, who saw his enormous grasping social
climbing tendencies, his eager corporate good old boy persona, his
narcissistic calculations. But they are drowned out by the institutional
left-wing voices, the fanboy reporters, the sycophantic labor leaders, the
slavishly worshipful foundations, and the voters who cannot hear any
alternative to the hope and change they know and love. The only mainstream
narrative challenging hope and change is the stupid right-wing storyline
that he's a Kenyan Muslim socialist. That's just racist idiocy. But there
are those on the right who understand Obama's narcissism, and they may just
make that their electoral narrative.

Think about this problem in a slightly different way. It's been three years.
Why hasn't been there a great iconic impersonator of Barack Obama, like Tina
Fey and Sarah Palin or Will Ferrell (or James Adomian) and George W. Bush? A
comic impersonator reveals something about the core of an individual. The
people imitating Obama seem to think that he's far more left-wing and
principled beneath the surface, that if he let out who he really was, how
really angry he is at the Republicans, that's the parody they hit. It falls
flat, because it's not true to who he is. The truth is that he's a
narcissistic sociopath dressed up as a cool corporate brand. The real Obama
parody is an Obama who wears an Air Force One fleece over an Obama t-shirt,
who says to a reporter "Now hang on, let me finish, speaking slowly and
avoiding your question, which is, by the way excellent." He's President, and
if you're upset with him, don't worry, look at that beautiful photo of Obama
smiling and pointing.