Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Please Note: I accidentally deleted an earlier version of this Scribd Document (61186607) which had had over 125

Reads. I have sent the following Letter to several WIPO SCCR Member Delegations:
In order to further advance the Treaty discussion at WIPO SCCR 23 for the visually impaired, otherwise disabled, chronically impoverished, illiterate, etc., especially after the IFLA 3.0 Treaty proposal is (most likely) introduced, your WIPO Delegation and others might consider proposing the following 'back-of-the-envelope' Treaty language: Whereas it is noted that the following proposed Treaty language is similar or identical to the Copyright Laws of WIPO Members Japan, PR China, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Sweden, Iceland, Chile, Moldova, Cameroon, and others, we respectfully submit the following Treaty Proposal: Anyone can make, on embossed paper and/or digital BRF/ABT or other ASCII Braille file structure, a Braille reproduction of any copyrighted material and distribute it to anyone. Regards/ JEM In comments dated July 26, 2011, the WIPO Delegation from Brazil noted the following:

512. The (Brazil) Delegation further stressed that there was no reason why the Committee should be discussing a treaty for the benefit of actors and even for the benefit of broadcasting organizations, and not for the benefit of the blind. The Delegation pointed out the need to look further into that issue to find a sufficient and adequate solution
www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/wo_ga_40/wo_ga_40_6.doc Note for Scribd Readers:

(Sweden) Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works


http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129586

(Act 1960: 729, of December 30, 1960, as amended up to April 1, 2000) Reproduction for Visually Handicapped Persons, etc.

17. Anyone is entitled to make copies printed in Braille of published literary and musical works. Copyright Law of Japan Article 37. (1) It shall be permissible to reproduce in Braille a work already made public.
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China


Section 4 Limitations on Rights Article 22 In the following cases, a work may be exploited without permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law shall not be prejudiced: (12) transliteration of a published work into Braille and publication of the work so transliterated. Etc. Also Note to Scribd readers please see again my 2010 Scribd Post Fear And Loathing In WIPO's Geneva Part 2: Is Poverty The Ultimate Print Disability? http://www.scribd.com/doc/31693648/Fear-And-Loathing-In-WIPO-s-GenevaPart-2-Is-Poverty-The-Ultimate-Print-Disability (WORK IN PROGRESS) Addendum 04 AUG 2011:

WHY is there no TVI Treaty as of AUG 2011?

PLAN B

The honest answer is that I do not know ... Another possible answer goes back to 2009 when a 'panel of experts' convened and structured a proposal that became the WIPO SCCR Treaty Proposal 18_5 or which I will call Chafee Redux. Chafee Redux took the 3 essential elements of the Chafee Section 121 structure -- Authorized Entity/Trusted Intermediary, Beneficiary, and Specialized/Non-specialized format -- and delineated definitions which would apply to all WIPO Member countries that would be signatories to any eventual treaty. http://keionline.org/content/view/206 In the USA, 15 years after the Chafee enactment, there is still disagreement as to who is eligible to be an Authorized Entity (AE), what exactly is the beneficiary class (and whether the legal definition is 'oudated' * ), and what formats actually are eligible as 'specialized' formats. During the 2009 Copyright Office Comments Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the NFB, said that both DAISY as specialized format and University Disability Services (AHEAD Members) as AE's -- while generally presumed to comply with section 121 have no basis in 'authoritative opinion' that they do so comply. Even the 17_5 Ms. Sullivan Report questions (in her WIPO presentation **) whether DAISY is a specialized format. The AAP in their 2009 USCO comments questioned these and many more definitions as initially presented in the original WBU/Brazil et al WIPO SCCR 18_5 Treaty proposal. *** * http://www.readingrights.org/definition-print-disabled **

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_www_1114 53.pdf page/slide 30 *** http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/comments/2009/reply-2/19-allanadler.pdf (bottom page 3 to 4) The reason all these definitions have not been further refined is that nobody has deemed it in their interest to challenge them ... It is a significant leap to say as one of the expert panel members has often said that as Chafee works so well in the USA that it should be expanded to the WIPO Member community at large. The WIPO SCCR 22_16 document has red herring copy at just about every definition. http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/SCCR_22_16_Prov_1.doc Then there is the whole conundrum as to whether any such Treaty would comply with the TRIPS 13 3-Step Test: Just what is so 'Special' and balanced about a Treaty that would grant non-remunerated access in NONspecialized formats to roughly 10% of the world's total population? * IP and Publisher interests could challenge on a country-by-country basis any country's ratification of a TVI treaty in that it violates the terms of existing Treaties already in force namely Berne, TRIPS, and WCT. WIPO SCCR 22_16 Article C says that Member State/Contracting Party should/shall provide in their national copyright law Mentioning that each Member State should just enact new complicated Copyright Legislation in this manner borders on the glib as if new legislation is no big deal. The language in 22_16 Article C represents a sea-change from the WBU/Brazil 18_5 Treaty language in which Article 4 says that It shall be permitted and never mentions any enactment or modification by individual Member country copyright law toward this outcome. The US Consensus Instrument 20_10 introduced the notion of Members should provide in their individual national laws . * (USA) Reading Rights Coalition: We represent 30 million Americans who cannot read print http://www.readingrights.org/ -- (Current AUG 2011 US Population 312 million US Census Bureau)

also whether a balance occurs when the number of free copies of a copyrighted work reproduced and distributed through an exception to copyright might exceed those distributed through the normal paid conventional channels after all, they are FREE. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/06/24/wipo-committee-seesbreakthrough-on-audiovisual-treaty-after-11-year-delay/#comment-4394665 Braille is a specialized format and in-and-of-itself is a certain special case Digital ASCII Braille files can be accessed by most DAISY players and screen readers. So, maybe the Treaty Proposal as above -- since it requires few if any definitions and has legal precedent in the Copyright Law of many WIPO Member countries -- should be considered 'PLAN B' if a morass is encountered at WIPO SCCR 23.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen