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

[Janet Hawtin]

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Manon Ress <manon.ress@keionline.org> wrote=
:

>>  And how do you and others who
>> oppose the treaty (and who are more honest than you about it)
>> suggest to "force" publishers? =A0Why would that "work better"?
>> Please show me.

As the law currently stands, all people with accessibility issues
are able to sue if people provide information in ways which prejudice
against them.
Publishers are currently legally 'forced' to publish in a way which does no=
t
disadvantage on the basis of accessibility broadly.

DRM is a second level of different obstacles over and above
the original copyright terms, which in effect weakens the clarity of copyri=
ght
permissions because there are many cases where the technology cannot
perceive that the user is making a legal fair use of a work, and so the use=
r
is losing legal access simply because of ineffective and legally
sponsored technology.

In the same way, a treaty which needs to give blind users specifically
permission to circumvent technologies which would otherwise already be ille=
gal
because they make publishing inaccessible is another layer of
redefining access..
And in this situation, the means to effect that circumvention will
involve using tools
which can only be developed illegally. This is a sprat for a mackeral.
I feel the blind are left in a less clear position being legally
allowed to use illegal tools
to circumvent restrictive technologies they could previously have
already required
be removed in line with existing law about accessible provision of
goods and services.

>> Sadly, you're not the only one who is opposed to our efforts to
>> improve access, but =A0maybe you should think about the impact of your
>> position?

It is disappointing that such experienced negotiators are not able to see t=
he
consistent issues and sincere concern expressed by a number of people
and persist in polarising the perspectives rather than looking at the
nub of the issue.

The softening the accessibility position so that people have to work around
blocking technologies rather than require them gone of is a confounding way=
 to
serve accessibility interests in my opinion.

>> I am =A0supportive 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? =A0I thought not
>> but I am hoping to be corrected.

I am supportive of global law to ensure that accessibility does not
prejudice access
to goods and services, and am happy to see those laws result in outcomes
such as the Sydney Olympic website being 'forced' to recognise that its
website was not compliant.

Shifting the onus from the publisher's provision of accessible goods
and services
to a situation requiring blind users specifically to find illegally
developed tools
to circumvent obstacles on their own behalf is not consistent with
other accessibility law.
Wheelie folk are not required to find the means to generate a ramp
into a public building.
The building owners are required to make the building accessible.

DRM is an obstacle which exists only because some industries are interested
in using technical obstacles as a means of supporting their business model.
Where those technologies are inaccessible they are currently illegal,
they should not
be condoned and then require an additional layer of work by the user
to gain access to
what was already a service to which they were entitled access.

I appreciate that all parties are doing their best but do hope that
a stronger position for accessibility purposes is the outcome of the proces=
s.

Janet