[A2k] Comments on Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

[Robert Martinengo]

Hello,

I have taken the liberty of posting my response to the EU Green Paper
(which I learned about from this list - thanks!), because I think it
represents a different viewpoint on the issue of copyright exceptions
for people with disabilities that what I have seen here so far. I hope
you find it interesting.

Comments on Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy
Submitted by Robert Martinengo, The Center for Accessible Publishing

To the Commission,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important paper. I am
responding to questions 13-17 regarding Section 3.2, the exception for
the benefit of people with a disability, as that is the area of my
experience and expertise.

For the past 10 years I have been involved with organizations that
provide textbooks in accessible formats to students with disabilities.
I have experienced many of the challenging problems in this process
and have formed my own ideas as to possible solutions. Based on this
history, it is my belief that, in this regard, exceptions do not work
and are actually detrimental to the long-term interests of people with
disabilities.

The main points against exceptions:
=95=09They increase the dependency of persons with disabilities on
government funding and NGO donations.
=95=09They do not provide an incentive for publishers to address persons
with disabilities as a potential market.
=95=09They encourage publishers to think that the 'problem' is being
'taken care of'.
=95=09They create discrimination and stifle innovation by encouraging a
segregated publishing and library system.
=95=09They do not respect the right to privacy of people with disabilities.

I realize this represents a broad condemnation of exceptions, but as I
answer the questions and provide a summary I hope you will see there
is a viable alternative.

(13) Should people with a disability enter into licensing schemes with
the publishers in order to increase their access to works? If so, what
types of licensing would be most suitable? Are there already licensing
schemes in place to increase access to works for the disabled people?

It is important to distinguish between the rights of individuals and
those of organizations. Individuals, regardless of disability, must
have the right to transcribe a work they have legal access to into a
format they can use, as long as it is for their personal use =96 this is
a fundamental freedom.

On the other hand, organizations who wish to undertake this activity
must be registered and acknowledge a debt to the rightsholder. A
well-designed licensing scheme, based on the formats being produced,
would allow accessible copies to be made while encouraging publishers
to adopt accessible publishing techniques.

(14) Should there be mandatory provisions that works are made
available to people with a disability in a particular format?

It is not practical or fair to require publishers to offer works in
any particular format. Instead, countries should require that
publishers deposit an electronic copy of every published work to a
repository. Access to the repository would be part of the licensing
system for organizations that wish to republish the work in an
alternative format.

(15) Should there be a clarification that the current exception
benefiting people with a disability applies to disabilities other than
visual and hearing disabilities? (16) If so, which other disabilities
should be included as relevant for online dissemination of knowledge?

This reflects one of the most serious problems with exceptions. It is
a violation of an individual's right to privacy to require them to
'prove' a disability in order to receive a fundamental public service
=96 access to knowledge. Instead, any exception or licensing scheme
should be based on the format being created. The more specialized the
format, the smaller the audience - the lower the licensing costs.

It is logical that an organization producing braille pay the minimum
licensing cost, as it has the smallest market. But organizations
producing audiobooks or ebooks, which have a value in the mainstream
commercial market, should be required to pay more in return for those
rights.

(17) Should national laws clarify that beneficiaries of the exception
for people with a disability should not be required to pay
remuneration for using a work in order to convert it into an
accessible format?

Returning to Question 13, an individual should not have to pay in
order to transcribe a work they have lawful access to, if it is for
their own use. Organizations who wish to publish under a licensing
scheme must pay for the rights, but they should also be able to charge
the end user a reasonable cost, which would be equivalent to any other
commercial version.

Summary

The shortest path between two points is a straight line, and the
shortest path between published information and people with
disabilities is through the publisher, not government or NGO
republishers. Technology has made this a real possibility, but
copyright exceptions are a step in the wrong direction.

What is needed are innovative incentives for publishers to address
'non-print' readers as a real audience and as potential customers, not
as a charity case. Governments and NGOs should be developing prizes,
tax-breaks, and other subsidies to 'prime the pump' by giving
publishers tangible benefits for publishing in accessible formats.

Copyright exceptions should be replaced with mandatory licensing
schemes that ensure that basic access can be guaranteed, but that also
encourage publishers to take up their responsibility to communicate
effectively with all individuals. Finally, libraries for the blind
should be integrated with general public libraries and all segregated
access should be eliminated.

Thank you,
Robert Martinengo
http://accessiblemedia.wordpress.com/