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

[Seth Johnson]

14 Jul 2009 "John G. Heim" <jheim@math.wisc.edu>
> July 14, 2009 "Seth Johnson" <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>:
> > 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?


Put it this way: they can, but it doesn't have anything to do with
copyright.


Seth