Copyright Industries Oppose Treaty For the Blind 135
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.'"
Rob you blind (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not really free.
Think of the price you'd have to pay for the rest of your life for these "free media".
In fact, I implore you to try being blind for a day....see how far you go.
Another thing, it's books (digitized form yes) not all media.
I see no issues with loosening and standardizing restrictions to allow for Text-to-Speech.
Currently, TTS is disabled on most ebooks (I personally think that's a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act...and I believe it was on slashdot [slashdot.org] as [slashdot.org] well [slashdot.org]
).
Either way, I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that doesn't mean that you have to gouge them too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How are special needs catered to, traditionally? Let me think a moment. Hmmm. A special need is identified, some "research" is invested, "special" procedures are formulated, and those special needs are catered to at prices 10 times more "normal" needs. I should start researching this now - in a few years, I'll probably need media for the blind. Does anyone here know what it costs to get software and media for the blind, or how much it costs for a blind version of bit-torrent?
Re:Rob you blind (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Rob you blind (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just physical books. This also relates other types of access, like audio books, where Amazon caved to publishers by disabling text to speech conversion in Kindles for books you purchase (which is just another case where corporations collude to deny you your fair-use rights in order to get more money out of you).
Re:Rob you blind (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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I doubt you will find one blind person that wants your pity.
Bet you will find every blind person wanting to tell you to shove your pity up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
word!
Re:Rob you blind (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.
Re: (Score:2)
They expect a fair deal, until it is convenient for them not to expect a fair deal to benefit them in some way others cannot get, extra time on a test, a ride during a golf tournament, free books.
You are confusing copyright and the right to COPY a book with the right of a person to sell that book used. Which is completely intellectually dishonest.
Top that off with the fact that every blind person I have ever met has been a raging, standoffish asshole (except when manning the "give us money" table at the ma
Re: (Score:2)
"The treaty also creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done, said Brad Huther, a chamber director. Huther concluded in a Dec. 2 letter to the U.S. Copyright office that the international community "should not engage in pursuing a copyright-exemption based paradigm.""
Those who oppose the treaty are obviously cognizant of the fact that copyright has been extended, tightened, lengthened, and used to wipe out fair use and o
Re:Rob you blind (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, the entire "American" attitude of "I've got mine! Fuck you!"
Well, sir, fuck you and fuck off.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Rob you blind (Score:4, Interesting)
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!!
Re: (Score:1)
I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.
Who do you think sponsored Hitler's public book burnings?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Godwin'ed. You lose.
Of course the publishers did not, that's a ridiculous accusation/comparison.
In case you didn't realize this: (Score:1)
You are a humorless twat.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well if you have digital Braille or whatever then surely you can regexp it to a normal digibook.
I'd say that's what they're worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
Money is the goal. What else should we expect? Our culture embraces and promotes this kind of behaviour.
When we someday realize that each other are much more valuable than materials and control, maybe we can expect better things of our society.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't RTFA, but I'm guessing it's a DRM issue. Any open format can be easily used by accessibility software (e.g. screen readers), but closed formats can't. If the treaty makes open formats available, that would be a massive loophole. Even if it's ineffective, DRM is like a comfort blanket to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Damn blind people (Score:5, Funny)
There is something wrong here (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Too much money and a big pain... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Too much money and a big pain... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 those things ARE hard. They DO cost money. It's not laziness. I mean, if it were, then you should be able to make the New York Time
Re: (Score:1)
A screen reader version of a web page costs as much to maintain as a printer-friendly version.
Re: (Score:1)
There is already a system in place to enable
Re: (Score:2)
That would work in a free market, tho it would result in unfair treatment for those who are stuck in those niches through no fault of their own. Such people will be forced to pay through the nose for often inferior options, and in many cases the vendors operating in the mass market will be using proprietary lock-in to lock out any other vendors - thus leaving the smaller vendors operating in the niche markets being forced to offer a non interoperable product which is seen as inferior and/or useless...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose that someone who's blind go about writing their own software and reverse engineering someone else's proprietary formats in order to make that software usable?
Re: (Score:1)
Or you know, maybe they could ask a friend for help.
Re:There is something wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is something wrong here (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're opposed to their rights being weakened in any way whatsoever. They DON'T CARE about anything else. They DON'T CARE about consumers. They DON'T CARE about the blind. It's all about ME ME ME, MY RIGHTS, and nobody else's.
These companies VIGOROUSLY pursue their own rights. These companies vigorously pursue the ELIMINATION of ANYBODY ELSE's rights. They would rather the blind have no reading material at all than be allowed to impinge upon their rights, even in the most trivial of ways; and they w
Re:There is something wrong here (Score:4, Funny)
Arrr, I've got me eye-patch already, savvy.
%y8wh[5 rq84. (Score:2)
Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 500.
5609 (Score:2)
%yq5 wy97oe yqf3 g33h {Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 599{.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Pictures or it didn't happen.
There's a German saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ist der Ruf erst mal ruiniert, lebt sich's völlig ungeniert
(Once your reputation is ruined, you can act without shame)
Re: (Score:2)
sehr richtig, Diese Arschloche muessen verrotten, selber geblindt, in der Hoelle.
[ When will Slashdot support iso_8859-1 ???, or fix the Slashcode repository so we can? ]
I should not have to spell it like Zu-e-rich !
Re: (Score:1)
As a blind person myself (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I can understand the argument that the copyright industries should be looser with copyright in this particular case, but I'm pretty sure that their unwillingness to let you read their books for free does not amount to "letting them take away my right to read". Do you show up at concerts, and, when the ticket window is unwilling to let you inside for free, do you describe that experience as "those guys are trying to take away my right to listen to music"?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we used to rush the gates, but it seems like everyone in america had their balls removed at some point in the past decade.
Actually, it just seems like we're more pro-authority than we ever have been.
"right to read"? (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.
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, plai
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing excuses him for that, but if he purchased an ebook for instance. And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p (one that's been OCR'd, re-indexed, and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer), then please let's not make that an infraction (civil or criminal).
We used to have to throw pipes in the gutter and cover them with cement in the dead middle of the night, just so th
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing excuses him for that, but if he purchased an ebook for instance. And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p (one that's been OCR'd, re-indexed, and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer), then please let's not make that an infraction (civil or criminal).
Where is the incentive for publishers etc. to change if they're getting money either way? A person is entirely excused in getting something of zero cost illegally when they are denied access to it legally. If the publishers etc. want money then they can acknowledge the market forces at work and make something worth buying.
Re: (Score:2)
See. He wants it EASY. EASY access. EASILY purchased.
You don't want the same access, you want EASY access. And are ready to break the law to do it.
I do the same thing, I much prefer to get pirated copies because well, if it turns out to be crap I am just out time and a bit of bandwidth.
But _I_ dont sugar coat what I am doing as some sort of right.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously believe it's illegal to read a book if the writer says you can't?
If they go through the right channels, yes. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
however, you do not have the right to read a copyrighted book, unless the copyright holder has granted you permission to do so
Well that's just plain wrong.
The person who owns a copy of a book can restrict access to it, and refuse to let other people handle it unless and until they pay for it. However, that person may or may not be the copyright holder. Nor is it necessary that the books are even copyrighted.
The copyright holder, meanwhile, has no rights as to a work or copies that the work is fixed within,
OUTLAWS (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
In the land of the blind, the one with the braille pron is king.
just a misunderstanding (Score:4, Funny)
- which would seriously compromise the concept of illegible small print.
the bottom line (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:the bottom line (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
There is also the other half of the slippery slope. Tighten down copyright law too far and no one can actually use your copyright protected product and so they stop buying it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
having read more than this article about it: copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their profit 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...
T, FTFY. And as much as I hate it, I don't really blame them for it. They exist for a reason and the reason is profit, nothing else. Profit is *the* motivation of everything they do -- be it good or evil.
And I tend to forgive them these days.
Re: (Score:1)
Apes, not monkeys.
what words (Score:1)
blind or shortsighted is the words i would have used to describe this corporate activity, but that would be inappropriate with the context.
Horrible (Score:1)
Typical (Score:2)
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 le
Compromise? (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
You should not need someone's permission to use a stinking TTS program.
Screw the blind on principle (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the summary. I take it that the businesses are determined to screw the blind. Its foolish business like this that make it certain that we need state regulation to protect the disadvantaged. Anyone care to explain why its a good idea to screw over blind people? Is it to get me to vote for the state to regulate everything because its obvious that business has no sense of responsibility at all and is greedy enough to kill the planet, pitchfork babies, mutate the unborn and generally treat us all lik
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think they're "determined to screw the blind". They're just greedy bastards.
Now, personally, I don't actually have that much problem with "honest" greed. Google make a ton of money out of making the best search engine. I don't want to stop that.
But these guys are bastards. They constantly lobby to extend copyright beyond what's sensible (it should be about 30 years). They release products which they know are faulty (like movies which are crash marketed because they know that the word-of-mouth will k
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem, you see is that not every country is as...rigorous at keeping
> things from happening against the rules as others. Seriously, who is going
> to assure the publishers that their works aren't going to be given to people
> who aren't blind?
That simply isn't the great tragedy that Big Content wants to make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Since TFA is talking about about digitized books, saying things like "can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland" and "They have to destroy them" makes me wonder whether or not you actually understand what's being discussed here.
This is about allowing National organizations to share e-books for the blind internationally.
There is nothing surplus and nothing to be destroyed.
Keep track of these companies (Score:2)
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.
we already have this in the United States (Score:5, Informative)
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
Leave it to Google too be evil (Score:2)
Copyright is theft (Score:2)
Why is anyone surprised?
doesn't surprise me (Score:1)
That's american corporatism for you. (Score:2)
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.
Hey copyright industries! (Score:2)
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 pr
Re: (Score:2)
"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 marke
Re: (Score:2)
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'
Re:summary is misleading (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 wh