[A2k] Federico asked that I made public our offlist discussion

[Manon Ress]

I posted:
On 05/05/2009, Manon Ress wrote:
> Please do not confuse me with the author of posts arguing against
> efforts to provide more access to reading disabled persons.


He wrote to me:
Manon, I ask you to please take that back. It is a low blow, uncalled
for, and
borderline dishonest.

I am not arguing against efforts to provide more access to reading
disabled
persons. I am arguing against certain approaches to achieve that goal,
and
favouring other approaches I think are better suited to both that task
and
other goals.

You may disagree with my assessment, but saying that I oppose
providing more
access to blind persons just because I don't support your same
approach to the
problem is absurd, and I resent it.

=09Fede

********************************************************

Fede,

I am not taking any back.

Manon
ps
here's my private email to Fede about it

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Manon Ress <manon.ress@keionline.org>
> Date: May 5, 2009 3:48:06 PM EDT
> To: Federico Heinz <fheinz@vialibre.org.ar>
> Subject: Re: [A2k] As a moderator,
>
> Federico,
>
> It is your position that is low and dishonest.
>
> However, you are honest in saying you are arguing against "certain"
> approaches and "favouring" other approaches.  What do you exactly
> mean by "favouring"?  This is not an armchair game of  theories.  We
> are talking about real people and real solutions. You are not.
>
> On May 3rd, you wrote:
>
> "Part of the point I think Richard is making is that it is unwise to
> spend so much effort in removing, one by one, every pebble in
> reading-impaired people's path, when they are bound to be blocked by
> the same large boulder that block everyone.
>
> SNIP
>
> As for "books before we are dead", I think Richard's suggestion to
> enacts laws that force publishers to distribute accessible
> electronic copies of every book
> they publish, at most at the same price as the non-accessible
> version, would work much better."
>
> We are unwise?  And you are wise? And how do you and others who
> oppose the treaty (and who are more honest than you about it)
> suggest to "force" publishers?  Why would that "work better"?
> Please show me.  Again this is not a theoretical battle, it is
> happening in real life:  the reading disabled have a shot at getting
> a global exception to improve access for them and I see your
> approach as exactly what the publishers describe.
>
> And since you "explain" RMS to us, lets' go to him:
> On May 14 RMS wrote:
> "What we need most is to call people's attention to the issue and
> tell them they are entitled to stand up for their rights.  Campaigns
> at the public level do this; talking privately with WIPO tends not
> to do it."
>
> here RMS shows his complete ignorance.  The WBU is not talking
> privately with WIPO.    These are the real people talking about
> finding solutions for the reading disabled and who could established
> a fair legal regime:
> At the SCCR 17 in the fall, the following Member States of the World
> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and/or members of the
> Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works were
> represented in the meeting:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria,
> Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Brazil,
> Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czech
> Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Germany,
> Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Hungary, India,
> Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica,
> Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Morocco, Mauritius,
> Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan,
> Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea , Romania, Russian
> Federation, Slovenia, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Spain, Sri
> Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former
> Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
> Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America,
> Uruguay, Zambia, Zimbabwe (78).  The European Community (EC)
> participated in the meeting in a member capacity.
>
> The following intergovernmental organizations took part in the
> meeting in an observer capacity:  African Union (AU), Arab
> Broadcasting Union (ASBU), Third World Network Berhad (TWN), and
> World Trade Organization (WTO) (4).
> The following non-governmental organizations took part in the
> meeting as observers:  Actors, Interpreting Artists Committee
> (CSAI), Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU), Association of
> Commercial Television in Europe (ACT), Association of European
> Performers=92 Organisations (AEPO-ARTIS), Association IQSensato
> (IQSensato), Central and Eastern European Copyright Alliance
> (CEECA), Centre for Performers=92 Rights Administrations (CPRA) of
> GEIDANKYO, Consumers International (CI), Co-ordinating Council of
> Audiovisual Archives Associations (CCAAA), Copyright Research and
> Information Center (CRIC), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF),
> Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net), European
> Broadcasting Union (EBU), European Cable Communications Association
> (ECCA), European Digital Rights (EDRi), European Federation of Joint
> Management Societies of Producers for Private Audiovisual Copying
> (EUROCOPYA), European Visual Artists (EVA) , German Association for
> the Protection of Industrial Property and Copyright Law (GRUR),
> Ibero-Latin-American Federation of Performers (FILAIE), Independent
> Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), International Association for
> the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property
> (ATRIP), International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development
> (ICTSD), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International
> Confederation of Societies  of Authors and Composers (CISAC),
> International Federation of Actors (FIA), International Federation
> of Associations of Film Distributors (FIAD), International
> Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF), International
> Federation of Journalists (IFJ), International Federation of Library
> Associations and Institutions (IFLA), International Federation of
> Musicians (FIM), International Federation of Reproduction Rights
> Organizations (IFRRO), International Federation of the Phonographic
> Industry (IFPI), International Group of Scientific, Technical and
> Medical Publishers (STM), International Intellectual Property
> Alliance (IIPA), International Literary and Artistic Association
> (ALAI), International Music Managers Forum (IMMF), International
> Publishers Association (IPA), International Video Federation (IVF),
> Knowledge Ecology International, Inc. (KEI), Library Copyright
> Alliance (LCA), Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property,
> Competition and Tax Law (MPI), National Association of Commercial
> Broadcasters in Japan (NAB-Japan), North American Broadcasters
> Association (NABA), Public Knowledge, Union of National Broadcasting
> in Africa (URTNA), World Blind Union (WBU) (46).
>
> Sadly, you're not the only one who is opposed to our efforts to
> improve access, but  maybe you should think about the impact of your
> position?
>
> I am  supportive of a global exception for the reading disabled
> persons, an exception to rights that would improve access and cross
> borders exchange of copyrighted materials, are you?  I thought not
> but I am hoping to be corrected.
>
> Manon
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Federico Heinz wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2009, Manon Ress wrote:
>>> Please do not confuse me with the author of posts arguing against
>>> efforts to provide more access to reading disabled persons.
>>
>> Manon, I ask you to please take that back. It is a low blow,
>> uncalled for, and
>> borderline dishonest.
>>
>> I am not arguing against efforts to provide more access to reading
>> disabled
>> persons. I am arguing against certain approaches to achieve that
>> goal, and
>> favouring other approaches I think are better suited to both that
>> task and
>> other goals.
>>
>> You may disagree with my assessment, but saying that I oppose
>> providing more
>> access to blind persons just because I don't support your same
>> approach to the
>> problem is absurd, and I resent it.
>>
>> =09Fede
>>
>
> *************************************************************************=
**
> Manon Ress
> manon.ress@keionline.org
> Knowledge Ecology International
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>
>
>
>
>
>

***************************************************************************
Manon Ress
manon.ress@keionline.org
Knowledge Ecology International
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673