Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Your Rights Online

Copyright Industries Oppose Treaty For the Blind 135

Posted by kdawson
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Industries Oppose Treaty For the Blind

Comments Filter:
  • by RotateLeftByte (797477) on Saturday December 12, 2009 @03:37PM (#30416954)

    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

  • Re:Rob you blind (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Renraku (518261) on Saturday December 12, 2009 @04:10PM (#30417266) Homepage

    Actually, there was an attempt a while back to get libraries to pay 'rent' for books, because OMG they're infringing upon our right to profit!!

  • Compromise? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by e9th (652576) <e9th@NOSpaM.tupodex.com> on Saturday December 12, 2009 @04:20PM (#30417334)
    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).
  • Re:Rob you blind (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WGFCrafty (1062506) on Saturday December 12, 2009 @04:32PM (#30417412)

    "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.

    What I don't understand is: how is this any different than public libraries cutting into profit margins by sharing the same copy of a new book for free? Even ensuring that the largest number of people can view it by limiting possession times. Is it that much more expensive to produce braille-included copies?

    I think the most worrisome thing would be that companies, angered by the lack of incentive to generate "blind friendly" books, will stop concentrating on producing them well, or at all.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...