Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Industries Oppose Treaty For the Blind

Posted by kdawson on from the see-it-my-way dept.

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.'"

14 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Rob you blind by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Rob you blind by WGFCrafty · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm sure your pressing dilemmas are on the same level of LACKING FUCKING EYESIGHT.

      This article doesn't talk about getting anything for free, maybe you should study it.

      proposed treaty to allow cross-border sharing of books for the blind

    2. Re:Rob you blind by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah yes, the entire "American" attitude of "I've got mine! Fuck you!"

      Well, sir, fuck you and fuck off.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Rob you blind by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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".

      The affected group referred to by this sentence is, of course, copyright holders, and they believe the approach is unproductive because it fails to maximize their profits.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Rob you blind by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and this is about new technologies. Libraries are old-school, well entrenched. There would get a HUGE public uproar if they tried to revise copyright laws to stop the loaning of books for free. But for new technology, where rights and privileges aren't so fixed in how they work for the public, copyright holders have realized they need to minimize your rights now to maximize their profits now and later.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Rob you blind by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right. Disabled people of any sort seldom want pity. But, they do expect a fair deal. If I can buy, borrow, sell, or otherwise transfer a more normal pinetree version of a book across borders, why can't blind people do the same with their versions? Huh? What's up with that? Special restrictions for the blind?

      I recognize no borders, BTW. Not for digital, or pine tree, or braille, or whatever. If some dude in Moscow has something I'm interested in, it's just the same as some other dude in Peoria having it.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. Too much money and a big pain... by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Too much money and a big pain... by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Some of this is simply laziness. For example, Building a computer interface that allowing real time scaling of screen blocks so that people with visual impairments can read them is not that hard, yet we did not see that in all major OS until the past five years. Web pages that allow screen reading is not a hugely complex, but many have made no effort to use screen reader.

      But some of this is manufactures trying to keep their inefficient subsided products from being made irrelevant. For instance, who needs a special TTY phone when every cell phone can text? Who needs a special large print books when any e-book can be set to use any size font? Who needs special books on tape when a computer can read a book. None of these may be as good as the specialized product, but the 'good enough' nature certainly appears to make the ingrained interests worried about their future.

      This does not even take account of the fact that technology is allowing some people to work who previously could not, increase the competition in the job market.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  3. There's a German saying... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. As a blind person myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:There is something wrong here by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are not opposing this treater per se, but instead any treaty that would set exceptions to the status quo of copyrights. They view it as a threatening precedent to allow any exceptions to copyright law, because it might snowball into eventually allowing society to think about more radical change to copyright.

  6. Re:There is something wrong here by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are not opposing this treater per se, but instead any treaty that would set exceptions to the status quo of copyrights. They view it as a threatening precedent to allow any exceptions to copyright law, because it might snowball into eventually allowing society to think about more radical change to copyright.

    More radical change to copyright?
    During the first 186 years of America, copyright doubled from 28 to 56 years.
    During the last 34 years, copyright has more or less doubled again to 95/120 or life + 70years.

    I think it's rather obvious who has been proposing the radical changes.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  7. Re:summary is misleading by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "To be fair, copyright has nothing to do with a free market; it's state sanctioned monopolies and fundamentally incompatible with a free market."

    Yeah, I thought about that after my post. The publishing houses that are bent about this treaty remind me of the TARP corporate welfare recipients. "Give us stuff, but don't attach any strings, or we'll throw a fit."

    Copyright as it stands now is just another form of corporate welfare. Why does an author need to keep copyright after he's in the ground? For 90 years? So his descendants can suck on the public teat of rent-seeking? It's all just another version of the Iron Triangle.

    You're right. Abolish it.

    --
    BMO

  8. Re:the bottom line by bky1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rights? What rights? In my mind, copyright is by no definition a "right" - it is a legal means to restrict others from using their rights. No one has a right to that, only a power (of increasingly questionable morality) granted by the government.

    Remember, in all but a select few cases, a right is not given to you; it is the natural state. Even in those select cases where a right is granted, it tends to be a proxy of a natural right. Voting is a form of the right to choose your leaders, fair trials are the right to not be unjustly imprisoned; all natural rights that existed before governments ever existed.

    There is no right to control information; there is only a legal power to do so.

    --
    Great Intellect...