[Nfbmo] Text article resent: US government lobbying against accessible formattreaty

[DanFlasar at aol.com]

Hi  all,
     I'm not  sure what the problem reading the link was but I've extracted 
the text from the  link below for easier
reading.
It's posted below.,
Dan
 
 
On  Monday June 21, 2010, the World Intellectual Property 
Organization (WIPO)  will consider whether to adopt a work program on a 
treaty 
for persons who  are blind or have other disabilities. Behind the scenes, 
the 
Obama  Administration has been trying to scuttle the treaty, pressuring 
other  
countries to abandon support for the treaty, and proposing an alternative 
to  the 
treaty that would do almost nothing to expand access to copyrighted  
materials. 
The recent U.S. actions against the treaty are orchestrated by  the United 
States 
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), an agency headed by  David Kappos. 
 

There are now many promising technologies to expand access for people  who 
are 
blind or have other disabilities. Digital works delivered over the  
Internet or 
through cell phones can be accessed with refreshable braille  readers, 
through 
synthetic text to speech, or in other ways, It is often  expensive to take 
books 
and other copyrighted works created in inaccessible  formats, and to make 
digital 
versions that are accessible, and also easy to  navigate and use. (See the 
work 
of the DAISy Consortium). 
 
The United States spends tens of millions of dollars annually to create  
accessible versions of copyrighted works, and despite this investment, at  
best 
only about 5 percent of published books are accessible, and far fewer  
periodicals and informal publications protected by copyright. Most of the  
work 
in the U.S. is done under the Chafee Amendment -- an exception to the  
rights of 
copyright owners. According to WIPO, 57 countries have similar  exceptions. 
The 
actual details of the exceptions vary considerably from  country to 
country, and 
the majority of developing countries have no  exceptions for persons 
disabilities. 
The United States, like most other  countries, will not export its 
accessible 
formats of works to other  countries. The U.S. does not export to Canada, 
Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa,  England, Australia, India or the many 
countries 
where people speak English  as a second language. Spanish speaking 
countries do 
not share accessible  works with each other. Each country pretty much has 
to 
create its own  separate libraries for the blind. This inefficient legal 
system 
has  contributed to an extreme scarcity of accessible works for persons 
with  
disabilities, particularly in developing countries. Uruguay, for example,  
can 
only produce about 50 new accessible works per year. 
For more than  25 years, the World Blind Union, the International 
Federation of 
Library  Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and others have pressed WIPO 
to 
create  an enabling legal environment for the sharing of accessible works 
across  
borders. This involves two things -- agreements on the rules for importing  
and 
exporting works, and some harmonization of the exceptions themselves. To  
this 
end, a strong treaty proposal was introduced in WIPO in 2009, by  Brazil, 
Ecuador 
and Paraguay,now joined by Mexico. 
 

Publishers have opposed the treaty. At first the U.S. opposed  discussion 
of 
the treaty, but seemed to have changed its position in  December of 2009. 
But 
more recently things have changed again, and  not for the better. What 
David 
Kappos recently described as a  "breakthrough" in the negotiations is a 
self 
described "consensus"  proposal that seems to have no consensus, and 
consists 
of a weak  recommendation that countries consider authorizing exports of 
works, 
under a new regulatory regime designed by publishers. 
The USTPO has  been lobbying developing countries to abandon the more 
ambitious 
and  important treaty proposal, and reportedly falsely claiming to have the 
 
support of blindness groups in the United States for doing so.  
What changed? Three important things.  
Ronald Kirk, head of USTR
 
  In 2009, Susan Crawford worked in the White House, and was an  important 
supporter of the treaty. Susan left the White House staff  at the end of 
last 
year.
Lobbied by Publishers, including  the (AAP), the MPAA, RIIA, SIIA and IIPA, 
Ambassador Ronald Kirk, has  weighed in against the treaty.
Justin Hughes, the head of the US  delegation to WIPO, has become a 
candidate 
to replace Marybeth  Peters, as the new Register of Copyrights for the 
Library 
of  Congress. Hughes does not want to alienate the AAP, MPAA, RIIA, SIIA 
and  
IIPA.
 
On Monday, four days of negotiations on this issue begin. Blindness and  
other 
disabilities groups are being asked to lower expectations, and accept  
something 
smaller, and less important, than what they need and what should  should 
have. 
I'm frankly embarrassed that my own government is not providing  more 
leadership 
on this issue of human rights and social justice. I expected  more out of 
the 
USPTO under David Kappos.
The situation in Europe is also  depressing. After a long period of 
opposition 
and then indifference to the  Treaty proposal, the European Union has 
offered its 
own alternative. How  weak it it? Among other things, it requires the 
"consent" 
of copyright  owners to share works under exceptions to copyright laws. 
Why are the  publishers and their responsive friends in the US and EU 
governments 
so  opposed the efforts to create strong global exceptions for persons who 
have  
disabilities? They are afraid this will set a precedent for other global  
exceptions, in areas where the markets are significant, like education.