You are on page 1of 3

Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.

The following is another comment submitted to Jim Fruchterman's Benetech Blogspot that has apparently gone into Moderator Approval Purgatory. Submitted 13 AUG 2013 From the above: "People with print disabilities in the United States are going to be pretty happy with the Treaty. Its consistent with existing U.S. law, plus it has import and export provisions between countries." Some people now are saying that for ratification purposes US Copyright Act would not have to be amended because US Law already permits the non-infringing export of copyrighted accessible materials via 602)(a)(2). This despite the fact that 121(d)(2) via 1931 Pratt-Smooth requires that a recipient be a US citizen and distribution to any noncitizen maybe is NOT a non-infringing copy. Senator Leahy via his staff's comments to KEI JULY 2012 has said that export of copyrighted material in accessible format by an Authorized Entity as prepared under Section 121 under current law is illegal. So that one will be a call initially by the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Leahy. Meanwhile, you wrote to me Sun, Jun 24, 2007: "Section 121 doesnt apply outside the United States. Copyright law is a national issue. Even as an authorized entity, we cant use 121 to distribute books to blind people outside the U.S." Remember? ---------------This comment by Jim Fruchterman is excerpted from a BBC Radio4 interview 2 JULY 2013 my transcription: This is not the most controversial treaty that you could imagine politically. It mirrors United States law. It's not all that dissimilar from UK law or other Commonwealth kind of countries that already have a copyright exception. So I hope this is a chance for people to celebrate a 'win' in international treaty making for a cause that is definitely good and actually has relatively few downsides -- that I think the political costs (and) the social costs of actively

objecting to the treaty as negotiated should be high for any business or set of lobbyists that want to object to it. When asked by the interviewer "Where is the (Treaty) opposition coming from?" Mr Fruchterman responded (in part): I think the real question that they'll be facing is how big a set of jerks do the want to look like if they actually come out publicly against the Treaty as negotiated. *** The following are comments to and from Jonathan Band who wrote the Library Copyright Alliance Guide to the Marrakesh treaty as posted on JEM: One of the questions the Senate Judiciary Committee might consider, whether the Chafee Amendment would have to be amended or not, is whether it is acceptable to the Committee that a qualified individual in the USA would still have to provide detailed proof of disability as per requirements of the LOC/NLS or Bookshare but an individual in another country, in order to receive such exported copyrighted materials, would only have to comply with the Treaty Article 2(c) which specifies that an authorized entity establishes and follows its own practices to establish that the people it is serving are beneficiary persons; (Guide, Page 6) which may fall way short of what a US citizen would (still) be required to supply. JBand: Unfortunately, I think the Senate Judiciary Committee would view more relaxed standards in another country not as a problem for the print disabled in the US that must be addressed here, but rather as a problem for publishers that must be addressed in the other country. In other words, the Committee wouldnt be motivated to amend Chafee to make it more generous, it would demand USTR (US Trade Representative) to pressure the country to make its exception less generous. In other words, if the US ratifies the Treaty but the publishing community is disheartened that the Treaty would allow lax criteria for proof of disability in an importing country, then their mission is simple: Along with the US Trade Representative and possibly the International Publishers Association (IPA), they can organize SWAT teams to visit every country that would potentially import US materials under such lax standards and convince their respective legislatures that in implementing the treaty they provide proof of disability requirements that exceed the minimum required and conform more those in the US Chafee Amendment. Maybe easier for the 'set of jerks' to just not ratify the treaty. **** I made this comment to Mr. Kevin L. Smiths post at

Mr. Smith is Direct of Scholarly Communications at Duke University advising on copyright matters among other issues. Along the lines of whats next, a concern of big IP holders may be the constraints that the Treaty puts on TPMs. The Treaty states at Article 7 that publishers cannot use TPMs that would restrict access via legitimate exceptions; Authorized Entities, however, who might deploy TPMs as in Footnote 11, seem to be impervious to circumvention. So while AEs cannot at times re-format works without somehow bypassing digital restraints used by publishers, such blanket provisions in the Treaty as in Article 7 might impede a publisher using TPMs to provide some security for the 99+% of actual customers that are not beneficiaries of the Treaty and that is a BIG whats next. In his recent 1 AUG 2013 House Judiciary Sub-Committee statement, Mr. (Jim) Fruchterman, while commenting on the DMCA, said: We need to get rid of dumb TPMs that lock out customers with disabilities. But until then, it seems Big IP still may feel they are at risk if they keep using TPMs that can be readily circumvented whether for legitimate purposes or otherwise.

(Maybe more to follow)