[A2k] James Boyle: Obama in Cyberspace (FT)

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Jamie and all,

  Again to me and our members this mess is all about whom gets
what access to which books where and for how much.  The blind
and sight disabled get the proverbial shaft regardless.  As such it
is no wonder that the USDOJ is looking into some of this more
closely but perhaps without their principled ethics in tact while
doing so.  In any event seems to me the blind and sight disabled
may eventually have a case under civil discrimination statutes and
should file such a challenge if so.  What I don't understand is why
the USDOJ is not also looking into some of this including Chafee
in similar respect.  Maybe they are waiting on a legal challenge
before doing so?  Where are the Thurgood Marshals when we
need them?

  I also clearly don't understand why Barack himself doesn't
stand up for the Blind and sight disabled as after all it is the
principled and ethical thing to do as well as he himself might
benefit as he is an author, and he is supportive of improving the
educational system in which improved access to books is
a very important aspect.

James Love wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 15:00 -0400, Robert Martinengo wrote:
> > What is the deal here people? I will pay $10 to the first person who
> > provides proof that the Obama administration opposes, quietly or
> > otherwise, the WBU treaty (that is, a documented comment from a
> > government official, not James Love's tweets from Geneva). Get it
> > right or get off it already.
>
> Robert,
>
> Much of what has been written about this topic concerns the position
> that the United States and other members of "Group B" took on May 28-29,
> the last two days of the SCCR meeting, on the topic of whether or not
> the SCCR would discuss the proposal for a treaty at its November SCCR
> meeting.
>
> Support for discussion of a treaty was extensive in Asia, Latin America
> and Africa.  The SCCR 18 conclusions report that some members expressed
> the view "that deliberations regarding any instrument would be
> premature."  That was the Group B position, and the US is the most
> important member of Group B.  At the SCCR the US delegation was clear in
> private briefings that it was not looking for "polarizing" solutions. So
> far, the publishers have vehemently opposed a treaty.  The US had
> Germany (a hardliner against the treaty) negotiate on its behalf in the
> Green Room discussions.  I doubt any member of the US delegation would
> deny that.
>
> That was SCCR 18.   Now we are headed to SCCR 19. The final decision in
> SCCR 18 was that the treaty will in fact be discussed at SCCR 19.  The
> US is now "looking forward" to the discussion it tried in May to block.
> This is good.  The Obama Administration is now focusing more on this
> issue, and appears, from Jim Fruchterman's posts, to have a more open
> view than what was evident in May.
>
> Jim Fruchterman reported in the same blog* that "Nothing I heard from
> the Copyright Office made me think they were pro-Treaty."   That is our
> impression also.  However, as Jim notes, the Copyright Office is not the
> final decider.  That would be the White House.  The White House position
> today is better than the US Delegation to WIPO position was in May.  How
> much better is unclear.
>
> If Robert Martinego has evidence that the Administration is supporting
> work on a treaty, that is indeed welcome news.  Is that what you are
> saying?
>
> *
> http://benetech.blogspot.com/2009/06/fascinating-meeting-at-copyright-office.html
>
> > People might want to read what Maria Pallante from the US Copyright
> > Office wrote on Jim Fruchtermans blog:
> >
> > "...In the months ahead, we also will be looking at the Chafee
> > Amendment to see how it (and other provisions of U.S. law) would
> > interact with the treaty proposal that was tabled by Brazil, Ecuador
> > and Paraguay at the WIPO meeting. Because copyright treaties are
> > implemented through the national laws of member states, this is an
> > essential step in analyzing the proposal and one for which the U.S.
> > government will continue to solicit the views of stakeholders...."
> >
> > https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5979923&postID=1969469041493033599&pli=1
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2k mailing list
> > A2k@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827