[LINK] USA, Canada and the EU attempt to kill treaty to protect blind people's access to written material

[Jan Whitaker]

Linkers, I received a reply in the post to this message. My original 
message was sent as shown, 30 May. The response was received 
yesterday, 16 November. Who knows *what* they've been doing in the 
mean time in Canberra. The response is from the AG. I've reproduced below.

My original message:
At 11:30 AM 30/05/2009, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>At 08:48 PM 29/05/2009, Kim Holburn wrote:
>
>>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/29/usa-canada-and-the-e.html
>
>Sent to Bill Shorten today:
>
>Dear Mr Shorten, I wish to bring to your attention a current effort 
>occuring in WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organisation] 
>regarding removing the right of vision impaired persons to access 
>information without a copyright breach. The US, the EU, and 
>Australia! among others are moving to remove this right in favour of 
>the copyright holders. Refer to: 
>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/29/usa-canada-and-the-e.html for 
>information and background on this situation. It has been a 
>longstanding principle that the vision impaired should not be 
>deprived of access to information merely for copyright reasons. I am 
>not an expert in this area, but am somewhat familiar with it after 
>doing work with Vision Australia. I ask you and your staff to 
>discuss this position by the govt with colleagues and reconsider the 
>position. You or I or our loved ones could lose our sight at any 
>time and be deprived of the joy of 'reading' merely due to this 
>proposed change. Best regards, Jan Whitaker Berwick VIC PS: I hate 
>forms because I am not sure if I'll receive a copy and the info on 
>this page does not ascert that I will.
>
>[It's a form thing....]
>
>Here's his link to write to him:
>http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=ATG

McClelland's reply [I wrote to Shorten, so I was confused why I was 
getting a letter from McClelland]

Dear Ms Whittaker [misspelled my name throughout; I'm fairly certain 
I didn't misspell it myself on their bloody form]

Thank you for your e-mail of 30 May 2009, regarding copyright 
exceptions for blind and visually impaired persons. Your 
correspondence has been forwarded to me as copyright is part of my 
portfolio responsibilities.

Firstly it is not correct that Australia may be opposing proposals 
for a new international instrument to asist greater access to 
copyright materials for blind and visually impaired people within 
discussions at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights 
at the World Intellect (sic) Property Organisation (WIPO).

In fact, Australia is keen to be constructive in international 
discussions at the WIPO on improving access to copyright materials 
for visually impaired persons. This includes consideration of a 
possible treaty as proposed by the World Blind Union, and supported 
by Brazil, Equador and Paraguay. [I wonder how much clout they have!] 
Australia is very supportive of finding an effective and timely 
solution to this matter.

Australian copyright law already provides a number of exceptions to 
facilitate access to materials for people with a disability [that is 
true; I've read the act in conjunction with a project to provide that 
access]. The Government has no intention of removing or reducing 
these exceptions. [So if the treaty says they must, will they not 
sign it?] However, we will consider the merits of any additional 
proposed measures for enhancing access to materials which are raised in WIPO.

I can assure you that the Australian Government is very conscious of 
the needs of the visually impaired persons and people with other 
disabilities and understand the importance of providing appropriate 
and adequate measure to cater for those needs.

The action officer for this matter in my Department is Josh McKay who 
can be contacted on (02) 6141 3446.

Sincerly
Robert McClelland

=======
I went back to that original article by Cory Doctorow and find there 
is an update that things have retreated from the original position.
http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/05/29/final-conclusions-of-sccr-18#more-1961


These are the final conclusions of SCCR 18.

World Intellectual Property Organization
SCCR Eighteenth Session
Geneva, May 25 to 29, 2009

CONCLUSIONS OF THE SCCR
prepared by the Chair

Limitations and exceptions

1 The Committee reconfirmed its commitment to work on the outstanding 
issues of the limitations and exceptions, as decided at the 
seventeenth session of the SCCR, taking into account 
development-related concerns and the need to establish timely and 
practical result-oriented solutions. Likewise, the Committee 
reaffirmed its commitment to continue without delay its work in a 
global and inclusive approach, including the multifaceted issues 
affecting access of the blind, visually impaired and other 
reading-disabled persons to protected works.

2 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the Proposal by 
Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay Relating to Limitations and Exceptions: 
Treaty Proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU). Views were expressed: 
supporting the proposal for a binding instrument; expressing the wish 
for more time to analyze it; expressing the desire to continue the 
work on the basis of a global and inclusive framework; and expressing 
that deliberations regarding any instrument would be premature. 
Member States will continue to consult on these issues at national 
level and report on the activities and views on possible solutions. 
This proposal, together with other possible proposals and 
contributions by the Members of the Committee, will be discussed at 
the nineteenth session of the SCCR.
[snip]



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _