[A2k] WIPO Meeting the Needs of the Visually Impaired Persons (July 13 in Geneva)

[John G. Heim]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Johnson" <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
To: "Claude Almansi" <claude.almansi@gmail.com>; "Federico Heinz"
<fheinz@vialibre.org.ar>; "a2k discuss list" <a2k@lists.essential.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [A2k] WIPO Meeting the Needs of the Visually Impaired Persons
(July 13 in Geneva)


>
>
> Tue, 14 Jul 2009 Claude Almansi <claude.almansi@gmail.com>:
>> 2009/7/13 Federico Heinz <fheinz@vialibre.org.ar>:
>> > On 13/07/2009, Claude Almansi wrote:
>> >> However, when Federico Heinz asked him about publishers disabling
>> >> text-to-speech in Kindle texts, he answered that Amazon had
>> >> forgotten to negotiate the "audio rights".
>> >
>> > Later, talking with him in the lobby, I told him that was a lame
>> > answer, that audio rights might have been needed if Amazon had
>> > distributed a recording of the sound-to-speech output, but were not
>> > needed in this case: if I purchase a book, I don't need audio right
>> > to read it aloud to my children, and neither do I need audio rights
>> > to get my computer to read it aloud to them.
>> >
>> > After that exchange, he admitted that publishers were fighting a
>> > lost cause there, and that it was just a matter of time until
>> > common sense sets in.
>>
>> Thanks for the update, Federico: even the Swiss delegate to WIPO said
>> to me in the corridors during the SCCR meeting in May that disabling
>> TTS in the Kindle was a lost cause.
>>
>> These more lucid copyright defenders are in an awkward in-between
>> position: they can't very well tell publicly their more strident
>> companions that thinking they can emulate the Little Dutch Boy and
>> save the present copyright dam by sticking their pinkies in its holes
>> is delusional. Let's hope they do so when they are among themselves -
>> for the sake of access to knowledge AND of the authors' right to
>> compensation for their work.
>
>
> If common sense prevails in the sense described, it would serve the
> broader opposition to "DRM" as much as the interests of the
> reading-disabled.
>
> But I think the tendency to keep waiting for a technical solution still
> prevails, and probably better explains the motivations of the strident
> "copyright defenders."  If ACTA is about enforcing palladiated computers
> under the rubric of anti-counterfeiting, their hopes are still in play
> and are reflecting a technically feasible scheme.


I am confused as to what all this means though. Can't Amazon legally put
whatever electronic restrictions it wants on the stuff it sells? Is WIPO
going to say they can't? Or is it going to say they can put restrictions on
their e-books but blind people can legally break them?