Proposed international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities Note: The full UK request

for consultation available at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-policy-printdisabilities Consultation Ahead of the next SCCR meeting, we would like to consult on the current draft text so that we can feed into discussions with other EU Member States. We welcome your views on the current text: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=170957 When responding, you may wish to consider the following questions: 1. Does the text strike the right balance between rights holders and beneficiaries? 2. Does the text need amending? If so, what amendments would you propose? 3. Are there any aspects missing from the text? 4. Do you consider the text could form a joint recommendation or a treaty? 5. If a joint recommendation, what are your views on a possible two-step approach, ie a joint recommendation followed by returning to discussions on a treaty at a later date? From: CopyrightConsultation Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:22 PM Subject: RE: Copyright and Enforcement Directorate re: WIPO SCCR 22/15 'Print Disabilities' Many thanks for your response. Kind regards Copyright Policy Intellectual Property Office My response: Hello --

My name is JEM. I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber and Founder/Director of the US 501c3 Non Profit and 'Authorized Entity' 121AuthEnt.org ... I am replying to your Office's request for comments on your 5 questions related to the current WIPO SCCR document 22/15. I have the following comments: 1. The word 'balance' often appears in the IP Preambles and discussions but everyone who mentions it seems to think everyone else a priori knows what it means. I have my own definition when the current text is not in balance: It is when there are fewer copies of copyrighted materials sold and paid for through mainstream channels than there are alternative copies made available FOR FREE through various exemptions to copyright in both specialized and nonspecialized formats. Very few books or textbooks sell a million copies but the current 22/15 text would assume that hundreds of millions of persons world-wide would be eligible for such exemptions and might request such books because -after all -- they are FREE. 2 and 3 -- The current text and the four previous proposals that were merged into the current 22/15 text especially the WBU/Brazil et al 18/5 Treaty proposal in large measure rely on the structure of the US Copyright Section 121 'Chafee Amendment' i.e. there are definitions required as to - an eligible reading impaired disability beneficiary class - an entity authorized or trusted that is a non profit / NGO or government agency that can legally make alternative accessible formats of copyrighted materials - formats that are eligible for accessible conversion including but not limited to such 'specialized' formats as Braille and other formats that are not 'mainstream' and possibly any format that might aid a person who cannot access the original format as provided by a Publisher. In the case of the current WIPO SCCR 22/15 document there are also definitions and criteria that determine on what basis documents might be exported by one country and then imported by another country or countries. Somewhere along the line persons somehow came to the conclusion that any WIPO SCCR Treaty proposal must somehow mimic the US Section 121 format. I have another suggestion: There are several WIPO Member countries that have copyright language that allows a document to be converted into Braille and made available to anyone without restriction. These countries include Japan (see below), PR China, Korea, Moldova, Cameroon, and several others. I have provided a basic proposal structured as the following:

----- 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 in digital BRF/ABT or other ASCII Braille file structure, a Braille reproduction of any copyrighted material and distribute it to anyone anywhere. No definitions required. BRF Braille files can be accessed by most DAISY players and screen readers although not with all the navigation and bookmarking provisions. But the above language would have precedent in existing country exemption structure just as does the 22/15 proposal... it does however require a lot less discussion, negotiation, and potential disagreement. So ... Questions 4 & 5. I would suggest that the above might be a first step binding Treaty ... It would have no problem meeting the TRIPS 13 provision of certain special case as it is Braille which just about every country's copyright exemption recognizes as indeed a special case... And the 'balance' question would be addressed as it provides that exemptions will ONLY be in specialized format and of little use to anyone who does not require a specialized format to access materials. Will this appease those who want materials in a binding Treaty to be in available in ANY format that helps the beneficiary class even if that format borders on or in fact IS a mainstream format? Probably not -- however somewhere in the history of Treaty negotiations someone probably said that the most workable Treaties require compromise to the point where no one is totally happy. But that sure beats the status quo that is evident by -- at this late date -- the fundamental 5 questions that your office has asked to be addressed. Thank you. JEM NOTE: JAPAN COPYRIGHT LAW (Law No. 48 of May 6, 1970, as amended by Laws (Long List) Art. 37.(Reproduction in Braille, etc.) (1) It shall be permissible to reproduce in Braille for the blind a work already made public.

UPDATE:
I have now noticed several other persons who have publicly posted their Comments to the UK Consultation request: They generally imply that this is a matter of Human Rights of those unable to access conventional materials in print versus the mercenary rights of the Intellectual Property ownership interests. They comment that these negotiations have been ongoing for almost 30 years when the-right-thing-to-do is so obvious to any good-hearted person. Well if everything is so obvious and so cut-and-dry the conundrum would have been solved 30 years ago. The disability rights community continually proffers Treaty language that they know to which the IP folks will object Saying that the IP rights communitys ONLY legitimate concern is piracy is specious and simplistic. As said in Alfred Hitchcock movie Psycho: If it doesnt gel it isnt aspic and this isnt gelling.