[governance] FW: [A2k] Mike Masnick: IPO Association Against Helping The Blind Because It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent'

[michael gurstein]

-----Original Message-----
From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Manon Ress
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:34 AM
To: a2k discuss list
Subject: [A2k] Mike Masnick: IPO Association Against Helping The Blind
Because It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent'

Intellectual Property Owners Association Against Helping The Blind Because
It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent'
from the encouraging-rights-for-the-public-would-do-what-now? dept by Mike
Masnick Wed, May 8th 2013

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/00585822974/intellectual-property
-owners-association-against-helping-blind-because-it-would-set-dangerous-pre
cedent.shtml#comments

We've been covering the latest efforts by copyright maximalists to screw
over the blind in the decades-in-waiting WIPO treaty process to help them
get more access to content by creating clear carveouts in copyright law that
protect the rights of the blind and of those who are transforming works for
the blind. Basically, it's about protecting the fundamental rights of the
blind to have access to information that others have because they have
sight. This process has gone on for ages, in large part because copyright
maximalists absolutely fear the idea that anyone might put forth an
agreement that ever so slightly pushes back on the maximalist agenda.

The amazing thing is that they're not even subtle about this. Last year, we
noted that in a video by Jamie Love showing Alan Adler, a VP for the
Association of American Publishers, Adler was quite upfront about the fact
that they're against this agreement for the blind not because of the blind
folks who need the help, but rather because they're afraid of even opening
the door to expanding things like fair use -- which he claims is some sort
of attack on copyright.

Jamie Love has now called our attention to a letter sent by the Intellectual
Property Owners Association (IPO) to Teresa Stanek Rea, the Acting Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the
USPTO, concerning this treaty, in which the IPO is equally explicit that its
main complaint is any expansion of user rights like fair use is simply not
acceptable. From the full letter, which is also embedded
below:

IPO supports international action that addresses the needs of the visually
impaired in meaningful ways, but we are concerned about the VIP treaty as
currently drafted, focused exclusively on L/Es and not on the rights holders
whose copyrights are at stake. We are also concerned about the potentially
negative, precedential effect that a one-sided, exceptions-focused VIP
treaty may have on parallel developments at WIPO and in other international
negotiations

This is all sorts of hilarious. After all, the folks at IPO have long
supported incredibly one-sided agreements that only focus on the expansion
of copyright, and they're among those who have actively fought any attempt
to include user rights (they prefer to call them "limitations and
exceptions") in such agreements. So for them to suddenly step up and
complain that this one small, narrowly focused agreement is a problem
because it "only" focuses on such things, without regards to their "rights
holders whose copyrights are at stake" is pretty funny. Why has IPO never
been concerned about the rights of the public and users in every other such
agreement?
Our main concern about the VIP treaty, as currently drafted, is that it
addresses L/Es to copyrights in isolation, without parallel provisions
addressing IP holders' rights. The proposed VIP treaty would create specific
L/Es to copyright protection, with the aim of broadening access to print
works for the visually impaired. However, it would not reflect the
importance of protecting the copyright of those who created the work.
Okay, so simple question for the IPO folks: in all future agreements that it
supports, will it agree to support a "balance" that addresses user rights,
rather than focusing on "copyrights in isolation without parallel provisions
addressing users rights?"

The idea that the "rights" here are only one way and must be constantly
ratcheted up is disingenuous and somewhat sickening. It's this position that
has kept the blind community from having access to all sorts of works for
decades. And during those decades, folks like IPO have supported all sorts
of incredibly one-sided expansions to copyright law without concerns for any
public or user rights.


--
Manon Ress
Knowledge Ecology International
manon.ress at keionline.org
tel.: +1 202 332 2670
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t