[A2k] SCCR 17 final agreed upon text on reading disabled persons

[James Love]

http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2008/11/07/sccr17_disabled-text/

Knowledge Ecology Notes
SCCR 17 final agreed upon text on reading disabled persons
7 November 2008

Below is the final agreed upon text for the SCCR 17 on the issue of
access for persons with reading disabilities. There are four sentences,
in one paragraph.

----------
    The Committee acknowledged the special needs of visually impaired
persons and stressed the importance of dealing, without delay and with
appropriate deliberation, with those needs of the blind, visually
impaired, and other reading disabled persons, including discussions at
the national and international level on possible ways and means
facilitating and enhancing access to protected works. This should
include analysis of limitations and exceptions. This should also include
the possible establishment of a stakeholders platform at WIPO, in order
to facilitate arrangements to secure access for disabled persons to
protected works. A number of delegations referred to a paper presented
by the World Blind Union (WBU) and expressed interest in further
analyzing it.
---------

I may later write a more detailed comment on what transpired, but here
are some quick thoughts.

The SCCR 18 meeting in the Spring will be very important. By then we
expect to see a formal proposal for a treaty by one or more WIPO member
states, and we also expect to see significant civil society
mobilization, including the disabled community. I will say that the
opposition to the proposal for a treaty for the blind and disabled
coming from France and the Europe Member states (plus Switzerland) was
quite shocking to many participants in the room, and the lack of
leadership or opposition among other developed countries on this issue
(including the USA, Canada and Japan), was appalling. Only New Zealand
and Australia among the high income countries did anything openly
helpful in addressing the core concerns of blind, visually impaired and
other disabled persons.

In terms of what the WIPO SCCR did, one should start with the embrace of
IFRRO (the collection society) proposal for "a stakeholders platform at
WIPO." This was the main push by Europe and also the United States.
WIPO, as a UN agency, was dealing with the topic of limitations and
exceptions for blind and other disabled people =E2=80=94 a vulnerable popul=
ation
whose access should be addressed a matter of human rights. IFRRO
developed its proposal without any consultations with the blind or
disabled communities =E2=80=94 none at all. And their proposal was opposed =
by
the WBU in the meeting, partly on the grounds that the was no
consultation, and because IFRRO was on record in the meeting opposing
limitations and exceptions for the blind and disabled. Nonetheless,
France and all European Member states threw their weight behind the
IFRRO proposal, and opposed everything the WBU was asking for. The EU
even blocked from the consensus any discussion of the cross-border
delivery of accessible works. It is only because of the resistance from
Latin American, Asian and African countries that the concerns of the
blind and disabled community advanced.

While IFRRO had never even bothered to talk to the WBU or any other
disabled groups, the WBU had petitioned WIPO regularly since 2002 to
provide for harmonization of limitations and exceptions, and to address
the import/export issue, and specifically the intellectual property
barriers that are blocking the development of new global libraries for
the blind and disabled populations. To appreciate how extensive the
WBU=E2=80=99s presentations to WIPO were on this topic, see:
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D21=
3

The SCCR 17 text on disabilities will, in the end, be sufficient to move
this issue forward, and we expect a very important debate in the Spring
of 2009, and we fully expect the new Obama government to abandon the
alliance with the EU, in opposition to the blind and disabled community,
and do the right thing, and support a treaty.

Nonetheless, it was an insult and a disgrace that the IFRRO proposal not
only was embraced and advanced in this meeting, without any debate on
its merits or even purpose, but that it was given a higher status in the
decision than was the six year effort by the WBU to deal with an
important copyright issue.

I will close with the comments from one delegation at the end of the
evening. The delegate, from a high income country, had been silent the
entire meeting, but is a country one expects to provide some moral
leadership. I said, "why didn=E2=80=99t you speak up? =E2=80=94 this is a h=
uman rights
issue." She said, "this isn=E2=80=99t the human rights commission, -- this =
is
WIPO." She wasn=E2=80=99t being ironic or critical of WIPO. She thought it =
was
natural that the collection society would come first on this issue. That
pretty much summed things up.

James Love, November 7, 2008

--
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.=
6584