Treaty For The Blind Comes Into Force... But US Refuses To Ratify Because Publishers Association Hates Any User Rights

from the shameful dept

For many, many, many, many years, we've followed the rather crazy trials and tribulations of trying to get an international treaty signed to make it easier for the blind to access copyright-covered works (basically requiring countries to allow visually-impaired accessible versions to be reproduced and distributed). This is a treaty that people have tried to get in place for years and years and years, and it was blocked again and again -- often by legacy copyright industries who flat out refuse to support any kind of agreement that could be seen as strengthening user rights, which they see (ridiculously, and incorrectly) as chipping away at copyright. Amazingly, despite a last minute push by the MPAA and the Association of American Publishers, an agreement was reached and signed in 2013, called the Marrakesh Agreement. As we noted at the time, we fully expected the legacy copyright industries to refocus their efforts on blocking ratification in the US, and that's exactly what's happened.

Hell, it took almost three years for the White House to finally send over the treaty to the Senate for ratification. That happened back in February, and they sent it together with another copyright-related treaty, the very troubling Beijing Treaty that creates an entirely new form of copyright for performers. So far, the Senate has moved on neither issue. However, to have the Marrakesh Treaty go into effect, it needed 20 countries to ratify it. And while the US has sat still, a few weeks ago, Canada became the 20th country to complete the ratification process. That means the agreement officially goes into effect on September 30th of this year. As the EFF noted:
That’s another significant step for a treaty that has already made some important breakthroughs as the first international treaty focused exclusively on the rights of users of copyrighted material. Typically, if user’s rights are considered at all, they’re relegated to a section on “limitations and exceptions” or even as non-binding introductory text. In the Marrakesh Agreement, they are front and center.
That post also noted that it should be a no brainer for the US to ratify this:
United States law is already compliant with Marrakesh, but the government has not yet ratified the agreement. To do so requires a two-thirds vote from the Senate, and then a formal ratification from the President. Even at a time when passing legislation has proven exceedingly difficult, the Marrakesh Agreement would be a relatively easy and uncontroversial way to demonstrate leadership internationally and help bring books to millions of blind, visually impaired, and print-disabled people around the world.
But why hasn't it happened? According to KEI, a group that fought hard for many years to get the agreement in place, the legacy copyright industries are working hard to block it in Congress:
The Obama Administration has asked the US Congress to ratify the treaty... but Congress has yet to act, in large part due to lobbying from the Association of American Publishers.... The AAP lobbied the Administration for changes in the U.S. ratification package, and now have asked the Congress for changes that they failed to obtain in the interagency review process. The U.S. ratification already represents compromises, including limitations of exports to countries that have ratified the treaty, a provision that currently excludes all of Africa and Europe. But the AAP continues to press for additional amendments to the ratification legislation.
This isn't a huge surprise, the AAP more or less admitted that they would refuse to support anything that established greater user rights, since that would be seen as an attack on "their rights." And, of course, the MPAA has also been working hard to block it, whining that this treaty could (gasp!) "affect other future treaties."

All of that is just shameful. This is a no-brainer situation. Helping the visually impaired get access to these works is something everyone should agree is a good thing. And yet, because they're so scared of user rights expanding in any way at all, the legacy industries have to block it.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 4:03am

    "Blind People" is just the some as "Pirates"...and we hate nuance too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nate (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 4:06am

    Clickbait

    I've read your sources, and you have zero evidence to back up the claim that "US Refuses To Ratify Because Publishers Association Hates Any User Rights"

    Swing and a miss, Mike.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 7:59am

      Re: Clickbait

      Comment bait. Come back when you have a better argument.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Mr. Clean, 15 Jul 2016 @ 10:55am

      Re: Clickbait

      I've read your sources, and you have zero evidence to back up the claim that "US Refuses To Ratify Because Publishers Association Hates Any User Rights"

      Agreed! Anyone should know that the MPAA and the AAP love user rights. In fact, some or best customers actually have rights. So to say that we "hate any user rights" is just totally ridiculous. We've been fighting for user rights for a long time now, but the government just refuses to listen to us. That makes us look bad and it's not our fault. We'd love to have exceptions for both the blind and the deaf, but the law's the law and there's nothing we can do about it.

      Swing and a miss, Mike.

      Agreed again! We seem to be on the same page, Nate. Shame on Mike for trying to exploit the handicapped for his Tech"dirt" agenda. That's why they call me Mr. Clean!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:16am

    Well, I'm assuming these guys eat children and drink blood from puppies and kittens for breakfast, no?

    Silly, we are talking about the MAFIAA, sure they do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:18am

    The Blind will see

    Tech will progress faster than the legacy industries by allowing the blind to see before rights issues are fixed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chris Brand, 15 Jul 2016 @ 9:39am

      Re: The Blind will see

      and then we'll see the "content industries" sue them because they can now access works in ways they couldn't when they bought, err, "licensed" them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ThatFatMan (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 5:43am

    We're just to busy making sure transgender people can use whichever bathroom they want, gays can get married and force christian bakers to make their cakes and that women have the right to kill their unborn babies to worry about the blind. Maybe if they just put together the #BlindLivesMatter movement they could get some more attention and advance their cause.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 6:43am

      Re:

      wtf r u doing in bathrooms that you -literally- give a shit about whoever is in the next stall eliminating bodily wastes ? you moral scolds are skull fucked, which explains why you want to skull fuck everyone else...
      um, just WHAT is preventing ANYONE from going into ANY bathroom and doing whatever weird shit you fear-based nekkid apes are obsessing over ? a little plastic sign with gendered bubble-head icons ?
      *snort*
      bunch of fraidy-cat authoritarians who want to make everyone as scared as they are...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2016 @ 9:22am

      Re:

      Sorry the world changed when you weren't looking. Go buy a helmet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 15 Jul 2016 @ 6:04am

    Sure thing.

    The AAP is afraid of all the people who are willing to rob them of their well-controlled profit margins by gouging out their eyes and pilfering books for the blind.

    Eye patches will become synonymous with piracy!

    Captain "what do you mean, I am not eligible for handcapped benefits?" Hook

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 6:52am

    nothing like a bought and paid for group that controls what laws get passed

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NeghVar (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 7:41am

    ADA

    Does the Americans with Disabilities Act have any power in this issue?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Shmerl, 15 Jul 2016 @ 12:17pm

    So these publishers hate blind people,

    and Congress has doubts about passing the treaty still? Someone should spin it to them, that hating blind people won't give them any political dividends.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark Wing, 15 Jul 2016 @ 2:16pm

    Blindness is just a gateway to piracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2016 @ 2:27pm

    We've gone out of our way to sell less material.
    We are ignoring an entire demographic because we're scared that somehow including them will end the world.

    Shareholders should revolt, millions of people who want to buy a product are denied because some old men fear imaginary boogeymen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    john miller, 15 Jul 2016 @ 10:09pm

    Marrakesh Treaty Compliant with US existing law?

    From the above: United States law is already compliant with Marrakesh ...

    That is the opinion of many including EFF and ABA (AUG 2014 resolution) but until either both House and Senate Judiciary Committees pass the proposed 'Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act of 2016'and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agrees, that is just the opinion of others who have no direct say in the matter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Philly Bob, 17 Jul 2016 @ 11:03am

    Because Fk the blind and disabled.
    'Murica! Yay 1%.
    Bastards.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2016 @ 4:27pm

    Think of the blind. > Think of the children.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.