Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Industries Oppose Treaty For the Blind
langelgjm sends in a piece from Wired, which details the background of a proposed treaty to allow cross-border sharing of books for the blind — a treaty which is opposed by an almost unified front of business interests in the US, with the exception of Google. "A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind. With the exception of Google, almost every major industry player has expressed disapproval of the treaty, which would allow cross-border sharing of digitized books accessible to the blind and visually impaired. Google's chief copyright counsel believes the industry-wide opposition is mainly due to 'opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions... We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.'"
Extree! Extree! Read all about it! Copyright holders rob you blind!
Seriously what the fuck do these jokers hope to gain? How much can you expect to profit in this niche market to begin with?
I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Blind people should take there dogs to offices of the business and let them pop all over the place.
Always looking for a way to screw America!
If Motion Picture makers are opposing a treaty that concerns people who a frigging Blind.
Excuse me Mr MPAA how exactly are Blind people expected to SEE (with working eyes naturally) your esteemed works?
Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society. Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches and learn braille?
Bah Humbug
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 500.
Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society. Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches
Well, a lot of people would rather just not have to do any extra work or shell out any extra money to create products to benefit the disabled. It might be inhuman, but it is easier to just forget about the less fortunate and sorta hope they die off or something rather than cramp your style helping them.
This is my sig.
that will make peoples life easier.
From what I know it is their job to make it more inconveniently to more people to consume theirs products.
(I didnt read the article to see the argument)
%yq5 wy97oe yqf3 g33h {Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 599{.
Ist der Ruf erst mal ruiniert, lebt sich's völlig ungeniert
(Once your reputation is ruined, you can act without shame)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books, just as I do now. If the corporations that run the US and my own country's government oppose this, I don't give a shit. I refuse to let them take away my right to read.
The treaty would not only "allow" cross-border sharing of books for the blind, it would *require* such sharing under enforceable provisions of an international treaty. What the copyright owners are saying is that they are trying to accomplish the same voluntarily, but oppose the imposition of statute. As for Google, it's easy to be generous with other people's stuff, especially when they stand to benefit from ancillary relationships with officials in developing countries, so I don't see why their opinion is even newsworthy.
But if we outlaw books for the blind, then only the blind will have books! Oh, wait.....
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
the industry thought "treaty for the blind" meant "treaty readable by the blind"
- which would seriously compromise the concept of illegible small print.
having read more than this article about it:
copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form. doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans. they should pay too. slippery slope and all that. in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that. slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions. they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....
gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...
-.no
blind or shortsighted is the words i would have used to describe this corporate activity, but that would be inappropriate with the context.
Well this will just come back to haunt them. Google has wisely realised that you don't pick on disabilities, it makes you look, bad, like a bully. At the end of the day if I understand correctly, this is just move to make books more accessible to the blind, it's not about the blind stealing their precious content. These guys better wise up the world is changing around them. Perhaps as individuals it's time we boycotted and voted with our choices. Horrible.
The US content Industry does it again, after Banksters, these Executives are the most greedy, egregious and un-feeling.
... "No problem, it is all a storm in a teacup, keep watching the Polar Bears while we destroy the modern economy".
...), and Fusion power.
The only solution, to modify COPYRIGHT time limits back to sensible values eg 25 years or 10 years after author's death, whichever is shorter.
The only innovation in consumer creative enterprise is now happening in spite of, rather than because of these monopolistic idiots, eg Harry Potter, written by an unmarried mum in a cafe in Edinburough.
As usual, the major obstacle, is to get the US legislature under control, or for the Supreme Court to become strict Constitutional activists.
Unfortunately the media, which should alert the public is now also fully corrupted, vide Climategate
The only way to survive, without interstellar space travel, is the boxes (soap,
How about this. It's completely acceptable to no-one, but would allow the blind access to digitized books:
Any work can be played by a synthesized voice on readers owned by the blind, until such time as a licit spoken version is available from the publisher.
This would give the publisher an incentive to release audible versions read by the author/professional reader, while allowing the blind access until that time (should it ever come, which in the case of most books, it won't).
Seems to me a lot of people are replying to this without reading the article. Nothing new there, but if said people did read it, they might stop making some pretty dumb comments. Allow me to quote a relevant passage: -------- Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission. They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille. The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe. The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations. As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge. The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind. ------------ A simple example: A British non-profit organization makes books to give/sell cheaply to blind people in Britain *as is currently allowed by WIPO treaty*. But the Brisish organization can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland. They have to destroy them. The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners. Just like "piracy" huh? (idiots) Apparently, the industry opposes this on "principle". That's good. It's okay to fuck over the blind so log as it's a principled fucking-over.
http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
There's a big reason why they are unified against it. Remember most industries are required by law to provide content. Others do it under severe pressure. Notice that there is no additional cost in materials for the blind? The makers have to provide it at their own expense. Even though the article talks about books for the blind I doubt that's the real issue. Unless the capability is disabled most any book can be read out loud by an eReader not just books for the blind. Some OSs have the capability built in as well. I'm guessing they are drawing the line because of the next likely step, requiring all media content to be blind friendly in every country you sell to. That's why Hollywood is concerned because it would be a massive expense. Already it's extremely expensive to do voice overs in foreign languages which limits distribution. Add in blind content, verbal descriptions of action basically, in foreign languages and you limit distribution to only major markets cutting off a big chunk of revenue making films on the edge unprofitable. I seriously doubt anyone is trying to keep material for the blind from blind people in other countries but they have faced this kind of escalation before and if down the road they pass a treaty requiring blind content for people in every country that media is released in most will simply avoid distributing in most countries. Yes I know, why we'll just get the material off torrents! Trust me the more marginal films start to loose money the more sequels and remakes you'll see. I think if there were assurances that the treaty wouldn't be expanded the problem would go away. There are hundreds of potential languages to support and many of the countries only represent thousands to tens of thousands in sales anyway so instead of a small profit they'd be facing losses potentially in many existing markets. Remember also that markets are regional not country by country. Africa is a small market so if they have to support dozens of languages they just avoid the whole market. Even in Europe they only normally do foreign language versions for 5 or 6 languages when we're talking dozens of languages. Handicapped support is a third rail subject so they know if it gets out of hand they will loose. Limit it to allowing english language versions international and I'll bet money the issue goes away.
No additional comment needed. Oh, wait . . .
When, inevitably, these douche bags find themselves lobbying some government for "fair treatment", this conduct would be a lovely thing to throw in their face. Especially in an election year.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
bookshare.org legally operates out of an exemption from copyright law that allows the visually impaired to subscribe to a library of ebooks in an accessible format. (DAISY)
I imagine the treaty just extends this internationally.
--Sam
Yet again they have to be the vil black sheep that ruins it for everyone else. Do they not realise blind people are rolling in cash and should be paying a premium for anything.
I'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books, just as I do now. If the corporations that run the US and my own country's government oppose this, I don't give a shit. I refuse to let them take away my right to read.
What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for? And, way to go supporting the companies that do publish material for you. This isn't the anime industry where fansubs were needed to help 'seed' the market outside Asia. You're stealing, plain and simple. If you don't like the copyright model, fine, don't buy. Read public-domain works like the classics, or free garbage like Cory Doctorow's stuff. I have a right to freely associate and travel, but that doesn't mean I get to ride the bus for free (unlike you) or show up to a show all my friends are at and not pay the cover charge.
Also, you don't have a "right to read", nor does anyone else. Authors, newspapers, publishers, or bookstores publish what, where and when they want to, and the government is not allowed to control that; hence freedom of the PRESS. It doesn't mean you are entitled to braille or electronic versions of whatever you want. It doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to walk into a library and demand a book, or steal a book - off the shelf or electronically.
Sorry, but I get a little steamed when people start slinging around the words "I have a right to" or "my right to", or develop a sense of entitlement because of their disability. I also have friends who work for independent booksellers. They're not exactly rolling in the dough- they do it in part because they love literature. I also have friends who are authors, and they're not rolling in the dough either. It's years of writing, followed by a year+ of trying to find a publisher and get the thing edited, then months of promoting the book via tours. What do they get for their trouble? Pennies on the dollar per book. You think it's hard finding a book you want in braille? Try PUBLISHING a book.
A relative told me years ago: "The world does not owe you a fucking thing." Guess what? The world doesn't owe YOU anything, either.
Please help metamoderate.
You are a humorless twat.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Why is anyone surprised?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
my sister is blind from birth; its not polite to refer to it as a disability, for us with sight it would suck to loose our sight, but she never had it to begin with, so she tends to see it as an integral part of her very personhood.
i nearly got busted for cracking a screenreader program for her because she neither could afford it nor would anyone get it for her (not even all the organizations or govt); the program is about a $1000. she's been blind since birth, has hardly any contact with the outside world because of mobility issues, and i almost get busted for getting her something that greatly improved her quality of living.
Never underestimate the power of Corporate Greedy Bastardism(tm). To Hell and bedamned all others. The Corporation is first, last and always. It is the new Alpha and Omega. The Corporation is the only citizen with a vote. The Corporation will impose feudal status (or not) to whomever submits and labors for it. Many toil, few (very few) prosper. Go ahead, you can go work somewhere else. Here the blind are deemed a threat to the billions these companies have (millionths of a penny on the dollar), but it goes against the spirit of never letting anything go if you don't have to. It goes against the greed ethos. All for me, none for you. As an entity in our society, it should have been destroyed a very long time ago. It should have never been allowed to grow as powerful as it is now. Corporations, if they are persons, are psychologically damaged. They are schizophrenic, psychopathic and exhibit very anti-social behaviours and tendencies. The blind deserve much better than what some board wants. The board needs the board of education.
A few months ago I was helping a sight impaired individual set up their computer. I ran into a snag, and went looking online for some help. I came across a person and their exact words were to me... "Why would a blind person need a computer? Unfortunately, this person was not the first one I ran across online. On rare occasions it just floors me on the remarks I get from some people. Some of them act like they (sight given) have the only right to be online. A few I wished I could of given them a knuckle sandwich, or a swift kick in the butt. It doesn't surprise me that businesses online or even IRL have the same attitude. Unless a sight impairment reaches up, and bites them in the ass, they just don't think anything is wrong in how they feel about it. It's not their problem.
i wonder if there are still any morons who are willing to give me shit about american system, 'free' market, and the 'invisible' hand ...
what i see is there is no freedom, there is no system, and 'the hand' is bashing on our heads, leave aside being invisible.
Read radical news here
What are you going to do when they do this?
Move to another country? LOL ^^
————————————————————
Who cares when they scream? They can scream all year long. Ain’t going to change a thing!
(Yes I know about the spineless losers who will cave in anyway, and the even worse losers who will prophesy it until it fulfills itself. I don’t care. I say it ain’t gonna happen, until my prophesy fulfills itself. Because: Which one would you rather want to come true? :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Seriously, can't they just find their own way to read normal books, why should the poor multinational copyright cartels be forced to actually allow blind people to get access to their works without having the work duplicated nationally by some evil non-profit like the library of congress.