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
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.
%yq5 wy97oe yqf3 g33h {Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 599{.
sorry I mismodded this. it's not a troll, just stupid.
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.
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.
"What the copyright owners are saying is that they are trying to accomplish the same voluntarily, but oppose the imposition of statute."
Ah, yes the invisible hand of the free market. The free market doesn't serve the underserved, and with the current attitude of "maximize profits at the expense of everything and everyone else" guarantees that the underserved will continue to be underserved.
The free market hasn't solved this, and will not solve it voluntarily.
Watch me cry Glenn Beck tears for the free market. Boo. Hoo.
--
BMO
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
The free market hasn't solved this
To be fair, copyright has nothing to do with a free market; it's state sanctioned monopolies and fundamentally incompatible with a free market.
In an actual free market every book ever written would be available in any format desired; it's not as if it's a hard problem to solve technically. So frankly, just revoke copyright already, it's screwing everything from the economy to the handicapped and it needs to be put down like the diseased abomination of an experiment that it's turned out to be.
"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
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
The treaty would not only "allow" cross-border sharing of books for the blind, it would *require* such sharing
Books for those with sight can be freely shared across borders today (I lend books to friends in other countries all the time). All the blind are really asking for here is equal rights.
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.
Why is anyone surprised?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
For this, I'll use the example of Bill Gates.
Bill Gates has seen inherited wealth lead to idleness and worse. He's determined to give away his fortune before he dies so that his descendants don't sit on their arses.
--
BMO
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'm a humorless twat, you insensitive clod.
what has intellectual property have with physical property ???? nothing. Intellectual property is ARTIFICIAL. you should may be read Jefferson on the matter!
If I take away your home, what do you have ? nothing If I take away your idea, what do you have ? All you had before. The way things are now copyright first goal "incentive to create" is DEAD, it is now more the "disincentive to create"
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.
No, no they cannot. Stop lying.
You can buy a "book for the blind" (paper form) and lend or give it to your friend overseas. Just like I can do the same with a paperback I buy.
With an E-book (whatever form) you have the same rights (DRMed to hell or an illegal electronic copy) as the rest of us. It goes with the reader and you are not given the right to transfer it. Same as me.
You don't want the same rights, you want SPECIAL EXTRA RIGHTS.
So you are lying.
FURTHERMORE, you make yourself look like a lying whining douchebag asking for this. Just pirate the shit like the rest of us, and use the plain text in whatever reading device you use. If you really want to act like the un-damaged people, just torrent it. Duh.
"State-sanctioned" your ass. Copyright is a natural monopoly. For example, there's only one "Lord of the Rings". There are many books like it, but if I want to read that exact book, there's only one place I can go.
I'll answer your other question too. Copyrights are held by corporations because individuals can't survive long enough to take advantage of the full term of the copyright. So we sell the copyright to the corporation for a wad of money up front. We can then get on with living and partying and writing more books, while the corporation takes care of the boring task of extracting money from the copyright over the long term.
Choosing a value for that wad is almost impossible, but it's undeniable that the longer a copyright term lasts, the bigger that wad can be. Thus authors can directly benefit from longer copyright term.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.