European Commission and the right to read:

If you can´t beat them, join them and try to spoil it

Last week in Geneva at WIPO the EU was dragged kicking and screaming into a concrete textual debate on the creation of a legal international instrument for the Visually Impaired for an exception and limitation on copyright. Under heavy pressure and criticism from the European Parliament and the European Blind Union, the European Commission, represented by French Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, has been forced to abandon its previous outright rejection of a legally binding treaty and now has launched a new strategy. The EU, represented by the Commission has now made a series of obstructive and destructive amendments to the working text of the World Intellectual Property Organization with the double objective of undermining the whole purpose of a Treaty and provoking an endless debate in order to filibuster any practical solution for millions of print-disabled persons. The European Blind Union and the World Blind Union strongly reject most of the EU´s significant amendments for going against the needs of millions of print-disabled persons.

Considering that the whole point of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired is to establish an “exception and limitation on copyright” for certain uses and taking into account that the very title of this area of negotiations at WIPO are called “Exceptions and Limitations”, it is pretty startling that one of the first EU “de-constructive” amendments proposes to suppress entirely from the text “copyright exceptions and limitations” and to substitute it with “appropriate measures”! Also in this uncooperative sense the EU also proposes to eliminate from the text “ to provide the necessary flexibilities… to open the door to licensing alternatives.”.

When it comes to defining the “trusted entities” that would be responsible for distributing reading material to the print disabled, the EU propose to radically narrow the scope to only organizations whose “primary mission” is serving the print-disabled. This would eliminate public libraries, schools and universities, as well as severely limiting access to books in poor countries of the South where there a very few or no strong organizations whose “primary mission” is to serve the visually impaired.

The EU especially fails when it comes to social sensitivity to blind persons of the South. The EU proposes to define a “reasonable price for developing countries” as “the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price that the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market,..” Considering that an “E-book” could cost between 15 and 25 Euro, this EU proposal will not be of much use for the disabled persons of Guatemala or South Africa.

The EU also attemps to sink the copyright exception flagship with this proposed torpedo: eliminating the phrase “ without the authorization of the rightholders”. Obviously, if blind persons NGOs´ must negotiate permission book by book with rightsholders there is really no point of having an international legal instrument at all.

Where the EU reveals its shocking ignorance of what kind of formats disabled persons need is when it proposes an ammendment that establishes that no exception to copyright will apply if their is “a work commercially available”. The EU ignores the fact that many commercially available audio works are either not technically accessible, are not formatted to be useful for academic study, are not available at public libraries or are simply not affordable to most visually impaired persons. The EU suggests that the Spanish blind persons organization ONCE cannot share its formatted works with blind persons of Paraguay if those works are in some way or form “commercially available” even if the practicality of that “availability” is useless.

Other EU amendments (see below with comments by World Blind Union) all go in the same direction of blocking and spoiling any meaningful progress toward the real-life access to reading material on the part of the print-disabled.

Why is the EU taking this obtuse position? Why is the European Commission ignoring the will of the European Parliament? Why is the EU making unrealistic, draconian demands on an international legal instrument when the copyright exceptions already existing in most EU members states are far more flexible and simple?

The answer is clear: the EU has assumed the fundamentalist and ideological positions of the copyright lobby that refuses to come out of its deep bunker for a fair and pragmatic solution that facilitates the right to read of visually impaired persons around the world.

TREATY FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED (EU AMENDMENTS)

Comments by World Blind Union (WBU) in brackets

0.13. In the thirteenth paragraph, “copyright exceptions and limitations” should be replaced by “appropriate measures” (European Union).

• [NO- this instrument deals specifically with E&L. Other measures should be dealt with in the appropriate places]

0.17. The seventeenth paragraph should read “Taking into account the importance of increasing the number and range of accessible format works available to visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities in the world, and to ensure full and equal access to information and communication for persons who are visually impaired or have a print disability in order to support their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others, and to ensure the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, for their own benefit and for the enrichment of society,” (European Union).

• [Eliminates language on “to provide the necessary minimum flexibilities.... , so as to open to door to licensing alternatives.” This is not appropriate in a law providing exceptions.]

……………………………….

LEGAL TEXT:

A.09 As to the definition of “authorized entity”, first paragraph, the phrase “activities” should be replaced by “primary missions” (European Union, United States of America).

• [NO to “primary” – would exclude many schools, universities and other bona fide organisations for whom accessible format provision is vital work but not a “primary” part of what they do]

A.12 As to the definition of “authorized entity”, the second paragraph should read “an authorized entity maintains rules and procedures to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities that they serve.” (European Union).

• [The authorized entity should decide what rules and procedures it uses to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities.]

A.16 As to the definition of “authorized entity”, the third paragraph should have and additional sentence that reads “Member States/Contracting parties should encourage rightholders and beneficiary persons to cooperate and participate in authorized entities.” (European Union).

• [NO! This is not a definition- why would it sit here?] ……………………………….COMMENTS ON ART. A OF LEGAL TEXT

A.21 The definition of “reasonable price for developing countries” should be replaced by “means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price than the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market, taking into account the needs and income disparities of persons who have limited vision and those with print disabilities in that market.” (European Union).

• [No, it should be affordable in developing countries.] A.22 Further discussions and debates are essential on the complex issue of “reasonable price” as

it is not mature (European Union). • [Each Member State should have the flexibility to determine what is reasonable price

in that Member State.] A.23 The definition of “copyright” should be further discussed (European Union).

• [Asper22] COMMENTS ON ART. C OF LEGAL TEXT:

C.04 The phrase in Paragraph (1) “to facilitate the availability of works in accessible formats” significantly broadens the aim of the instrument and has broad implications. It should be preceded by the phrase “or any other equally effective measure” (European Union).

• [No- the instrument is specifically intended to facilitate the availability of works in accessible formats. That’s what this is all about.]

C.06 Paragraph (2)(a) should read “Authorized entities shall be permitted to make an accessible format copy of a work, obtain from another authorized entity a work in accessible format, and supply such a copy to a beneficiary person by any means, including by non-commercial lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertake any intermediate steps to achieve those objectives, when all of the following conditions are met:” (European Union).

• [NO. This adds RH authorization into an instrument we need for cases where we have been unable to get help from RH. Getting rid of the “without the authorization of the RH” contradicts the essence of an exception, that permission is not needed! The words “without seeking/asking for the authorization of the RH” could be used as the other option might seem to imply an “unauthorized distribution”.]

C.08 In Paragraph (3), delete reference to three-step test “that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.” A separate Article Ebis is proposed in this connection (European Union).

• [The EU proposal for Ebis appears unhelpful, in our opinion, and would need some work. We believe it should say, that the provisions of the treaty are without prejudice

to other flexibilities countries have in the Berne, the WCT or the TRIPS, all of which are important, and including such things as the first sale doctrine]

C.10 Paragraph (4) should read “the Member State/Contracting Party shall limit the exceptions or limitations provided for in this article to published works which, in an applicable special format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price” (European Union).

The word “otherwise” should be retained in this paragraph (Brazil, United States of America). Exceptions should not depend on the existence of commercially available works, as in this case the question is defending a fundamental human right (Ecuador).

• [This is very important to WBU. Any restriction saying that the exception should not apply when the work is commercially available must be on the strict proviso that the book is available at the same time and price, in the format needed by the individual requesting it. A commercial audio book can't be used by a deaf blind person, and a commercially available large print book can't be used by a blind person. Then, if the commercially available audio book or large print book is not affordable or available from a library, it is not available to the individual either.]

COMMENTS ON ART. D OF LEGAL TEXT:

D.05 In Paragraph (2)(a), delete “without the authorization of the rightholder”

(European Union). • [ Totally unacceptable to WBU]

D.06 In Paragraph (2)(b), delete “without the authorization of the rightholder”

(European Union). • [Totally unacceptable to WBU]

D.09 In Paragraph (3), delete reference to three-step test “that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.” A separate Article Ebis is proposed in this connection (European Union).

• [As stated above, we believe that the draft Ebis is problematic]

D.11 It is proposed to add a new paragraph 3bis that reads “The Member State/Contracting Party should/shall limit the exceptions or limitations provided for in this article to published works which, in an applicable special format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price in the country of importation.” (European Union).

• [“Should/shall” to be replaced with “may”. Member States should have the flexibility to decide this, especially developing countries. Special” needs to be changed to “accessible”.]

COMMENTS ON ART. E OF LEGAL TEXT:

E.02 Delete the phrase “without the copyright rights holder’s authorization.” (European Union, United States of America). Article E should allow Member States to mirror the flexibility of their exception in relation to imports. That phrase could mean, for example, that in other articles where it is not specified, there is no need the right holders’ authorization. This article requires further discussion, in particular regarding the notion of importation in relation to copyright (European Union).

• [WBU strongly against deletion suggested by EU. This is a text for a future law on copyright exceptions; not a licensing scheme]

¿Subir la luz el 12% en enero o recortar las renovables o reducir los incentivos al carbón?

El nuevo gobierno del PP debe decidir subir la luz hasta el 12% or recortar radicalmente distintas ayudas energéticas al gas, a las renovables y al carbón.

El déficit tarifario del sistema eléctrico español acumula una deuda de 20 mil millones de euros, 10 mil millones de los cuales es una deuda titulada que tiene que enfrentarse antes del 2013 a un mercado de deuda poco amistoso. El Gobierno del PSOE empeoró la deuda tarifaria al congelar la tarifa de la luz en el 2011. La legislación europea obliga a España una reducción rápida y sustancial de la deuda tarifaria.

Las opciones del nuevo gobierno a corto plazo son pocas. O sube la luz entre el 8% y el 12% o mete las tijeras a la cuantiosas primas o incentivos que recibe el carbón, el gas o las renovables. Las eléctricas y la prensa conservadora piden suprimir las ayudas a la energía solar y de reducir las primas a otras renovables. La izquierda (PSOE e IU) defienden con uñas y dientes las masivas ayudas a la quema del carbón.

Desde una perspectiva ecologista y de racionalidad económica el primer recorte energético debe empezar por el carbón. El carbón español subvencionado tiene un enorme impacto ambiental (cielos abiertos, emisiones CO2....) mientras que carece de la más mínima viabilidad económica.

¿Qué harías tú?

Broad access to our cultural legacy or “better dead than read”: A new EU Directive that is now being discussed in the European Parliament will decide whether to rescue millions of forgotten “orphan works that constitute an important part of our historic heritage. 

It´s hard to imagine that some people would snugly sit back while a big part of our unaccessible historic heritage is lost or, even worse, actively fight against the only viable means of protecting it: digital archiving.

During the 1950´s some  fervent coldwarriors insisted that it was much better to be “dead than red”. Today, on a very different level, a similar philosophy is being put forward by copyright fundamentalists, a few EU member states like France and by some lobbyist-cum-civil servants at the European Commission, in particular at the Directorate General of Internal Market headed by Michel Barnier. They would prefer that millions of books, songs, films, illustrations and photographs were dead, lost for ever, than risk any serious flexibilization or exception to EU copyright laws that would facilitate mass digitization and, thus, social access to “orphan works”, out of circulation works whose authors are unknown or not found.

These hard-liners expound the deeply flawed strategy of “cultural scarcity”: the fewer works accessible to the public, the better for the the “cultural industry” . Instead of massively liberating these forgotten works for the sake of knowledge and innovation, these peculiar “defenders of culture” would prefer to apply “passive euthanasia” by just letting the paper flake, the celluloid disintegrate and the sound recordings fade. Instead of legally allowing mass digitization through easy author search mechanisms, balanced public-private partnerships and clear limits on possible claims and renumeration, the copyright lobby and their political mouthpieces are erecting tall barricades against the advance of any rational mass recuperation of orphan works.

The battle lines are drawn in the European Parliament that shall be making some very clear choices over the next few weeks. On one side stands the broad public interest of libraries, consumers, researchers, educators and new innovative cultural businesses. On the other side the negative agenda of “the worse, the better ” coalition of traditional rights holders, some collecting societies and a few self-assigned ideologues of ” the moral rights of artists”.

It is more urgent than ever that the point of view of broad public interest be heard loud and clear in Brussels. Hundreds of amendments have been tabled and will be considered next week by the Rapportuer De Geringer in the European Parliament´s Judicial Committee.

Below is a summary of some of the clear options that MEPs shall decide on in the coming weeks (more information on the concrete amendments is forthcoming):

1. Liberating millions of orphan works for mass digitization or just individual access to concrete works.

2. Quick and easy “diligent search” or expensive, tortuous and long search of works fractioned by different authors, illustrators or designers.

3. Wide orphan works access to audio, photographs, journalism and film or a narrow scope limited to books.

4. Clear limits and thresholds to liability for fair renumeration or open-ended, expensive legal battles that inhibit use of orphan works. “fair” and “related to use”

5. EU Legislation based on existing frameworks for exceptions and limitations to copyright or a new restrictive, regressive interpretation of the legal scope of EU copyright law.

6. Opening up the potential of public-private partnerships for mass digitization of orphan works with legal flexibility or a rigid moulding of legislation for sole public funding of orphan works digitization.

7. Liberating orphan works for a wide range of uses for cultural access, innovation and artistic creation or narrowly defining the uses of orphan works only for “public service” and cultural heritage institutions.

The voice of public interest and access to knowledge must be heard!

David Hammerstein, TACD

EQUO: Lecciones de un decepcionante resultado "verde" en el mejor escenario posible

       La esperanza de la plasmación de una nueva fuerza política verde en España ha sufrido una fuerte frustración.  El resultado electoral de EQUO ha sido decepcionante y pobre. Sobretodo, se ha quedado lejos del anhelado diputado por Madrid al quedarse por debajo del 2% del voto en esta provincia. El 3% era difícil pero no era un objetivo desorbitado y era realizable. En la mayoría del Estado los resultados electorales han sido solo algo por encima de los mejores momentos del voto verde de algunos anteriores comicios (incluso en Madrid) y, lo que es mucho más importante, se encuentran todavía lejos del número de votos capaces de conseguir representación política significativa a nivel local, autonómico o europeo.

     Es evidente que el sistema electoral podría ser más democrático pero EQUO tendrá que trabajar políticamente con la idea de que las posibilidades  de un cambio radical en la ley electoral, en el sentido totalmente proporcional y con una única circunscripción  electoral, en estos momentos son extremadamente remotas por la posiciones de la inmensa mayoría de las fuerzas políticas parlamentarias.

    Hay que agradecer el gran esfuerzo de tantas personas que han trabajado por Equo y el cierto grado de consolidación organizativa y unitaria, pero al mismo tiempo será necesario abrir un proceso de reflexión autocrítica sobre unos resultados electorales tan insuficientes.

      

1. El mejor escenario posible. Estas elecciones se han celebrado en el mejor contexto político posible para la emergencia de una nueva fuerza verde.  A causa de la crisis económica y la pérdida masiva de votos por el PSOE  todas la fuerzas políticas alternativas de centro-izquierda (IU, UPD y otros nacionalistas) han experimentado unas subidas sustanciales. Según la sociología electoral española las derrotas de los socialistas gobernantes siempre han propiciado los mejores resultados para los partidos minoritarios.

  

2. Más atención de la prensa que nunca.  EQUO ha gozado una cobertura mediática mucho más amplia en la prensa escrita, radiofónica y televisiva  estatal que cualquier opción verde anterior. La prensa de "centro-izquierda" como El Pais o El Público, las radios como la Ser o Radio Nacional y la televisiones com la Sexta, han dado el tratamiento más digno que jamás haya recibido un fuerza extraparlamentaria.

 Además, por la primera vez, gracias al sistema de avales, EQUO no tenía que competir contra otras siglas "verdes". De hecho era la primera vez que no había una papeleta que solo decía "Los Verdes". 

3. Un mensaje ambiguo y alejado de contenidos originales.   EQUO no ha sabido o no ha podido establecer ante el electorado una "identidad propia".  Muchos votantes no sabían cual era el valor añadido y el hecho diferenciador del EQUO.   Mientras otras fuerzas si tenían un carácter claro (IU como la fuerza más a la izquierda, Compromís como nacionalistas progresistas valencianos y UPD como un partido liberal, anti-nacionalista) el mensaje electoral de EQUO era equivoco y tendía a centrarse en los procedimientos democráticos y no en el quehacer político. Los lemas de la campaña, comenzando por Reinicia o Resetear, no delataban ningún hecho diferenciador de EQUO. Es muy difícil entrar en el Congreso si un partido depende simplemente de proclamas como "voces nuevas", "somos los más frescos",  "los más democráticos" o "empezar de nuevo".

 

4.  EQUO se negaba a diferenciarse nítidamente de IUcomo fuerza verde de igual manera que los partidos verdes europeos se diferencian de la izquierda pos-comunista en otros países.   No se trataba de buscar una confrontación pero los votantes potenciales nunca recibieron una respuesta clara a la pregunta: ¿Qué diferencias tenéis con Izquierda Unida? Teniendo en cuenta que hasta hace pocos meses 2 de los 3 principales líderes de EQUO en Madrid eran diputadas de Izquierda Unida esta pregunta tenía especial relevancia.

 

5. Confusión de siglas y de confusión ideológica.  En lugar de plantear una lucha por el voto ecologista y alternativa que es sociológicamente transversal (inter-clasista  e inter-ideológico) con sus propuestas verdes, que recogiera votos desencantados de personas de personas con diferentes posiciones ideológicas, EQUO ha preferido no hacer especial bandera de sus orígenes verdes y se ha encasillado en un muy estrecho y ocupado espacio electoral de izquierdas. En vez de situarse en un espacio nítidamente verde, contrariamente su opción ha sido el proclamar que es de izquierdas radical, "ecosocialista" o "anti-sistema" o pro-nacionalista.  Cuando Juantxo Uralde fue preguntado en El País contestó así: " P.Hablan de república, más impuestos, laicidad... ¿Por qué no optaron por ser solo ecologistas e ir a por un votante más trasversal?  R. El votante verde sabe que Equo es su voto, y no dar una respuesta a los cinco millones de parados habría sido irresponsable." 

No está nada claro que el votante verde supiera que EQUO era su voto dado que IU se presentaba también con la marca verde en gran parte del Estado, con una papeleta que decía "Izquierda Unida-Los Verdes".  Muchos pensaban que el voto verde era IU o que Equo estaba con IU. Obviamente no se trataba de haber hecho una campaña solo centrada en cuestiones ecológicas, como tampoco las hacen los partidos verdes europeos,  pero tampoco se trataba de ocultar la identidad central, singular y diferenciadora de ser un partido verde o de pedir casi perdón por la identidad verde de proyecto.  Pero incomprensiblemente la campaña electoral de EQUO ha tendido a huir de la palabra "verde" y ha hecho hincapié en los procedimientos y la renovación democrática, algo que podía decir igualmente cualquier otro partido minoritario de cualquier signo ideológico.



6.La confusión de los "aliados" que se acuestan con la competencia electoral. El referente parlamentario y "el modelo a seguir" para EQUO ha sido ICV, aunque este partido catalán no ha apoyado claramente a EQUO salvo en algunos actos aislados para satisfacer al Partido Verde Europeo. Como mucho ha sido una ambigüedad calculada. Si el modelo "ecosocialista" de ICV era el ejemplo ¿porque no se presenta EQUO con IU como ICV?.  La inmensa mayoría de la población española sigue identificando a ICV como parte activa de IU y, de hecho, ICV ha sido una parte legal y efectiva de la coalición electoral estatal de IU. La noche de las elecciones los votos de ICV fueron contados como los de IU.  Sus máximos representantes hicieron campaña pública fuera de Catalunya a favor de Gaspar Llamazares, el líder más conocido de IU, con un impacto mediático mucho más amplio que sus pequeños actos a favor EQUO. Huelga decir que el 99% del mensaje político de ICV ha sido dominado por el enfrentamiento "Izquierda-Derecha" y difícilmente ligaría su mensaje con la mayoría de los partidos verdes europeos. Como comentaba el diario La Vanguardia al alabar su cabeza de lista: "Fue mucho más rojo que verde". Es de sobra conocido que el objetivo de ICV es reformar al neo-comunista IU poco a poco hacia posiciones más nacionalistas (con "espacio plural") y no de ayudar fundar una nueva opción política verde en España.



7.  Otro problema de la campaña y pre-campaña deEQUO ha sido su alianza con un partido nacionalista en la Comunidad Valenciana, que es el partido que domina la coalición Compromís. Esta alianza ignoraba que la gran mayoría de votantes proclives a votar una opción "verde" se considera poco o nada nacionalistas.   Además, esta coalición se hizo con tal déficit de exigencias democráticas y de transparencia que la gran mayoría de verdes y ecologistas valencianos decidieron no trabajar activamente en la campaña de Compromís-EQUO.  De hecho, Compromís recibió un muy pobre resultado en dos pequeñas ciudades gobernadas por alcaldes verdes, Orihuela y Villena, mientras fue mucho mayor el apoyo a "IU-Los Verdes" a pesar de no contar IU con representación en estos municipios.



8. El hecho de no disfrutar de los espacios gratuitos de RTVEtambién ha sido grave para el conocimiento de una nueva marca.  No se puede achacar simplemente a una injusticia. Ha sido un error de la organización de EQUO de no recoger los ciento y pico firmas que hacia falta para presentarse en Teruel, por ejemplo. El motivo dado por los miembros de EQUO allí en Teruel era que Madrid no les dejaba recoger las firmas por no llegar a los 20 miembros exigidos para formar un colectivo! Posiblemente desde la dirección de EQUO es posible que no se supieran los imperativos del detalle electoral, el 75%.

9. Conseguir un resultado mucho mejor para una nueva fuerza política verde con un nombre nuevo y desconocido hubiera sido en todo caso difícil. Una participación de EQUO en las municipales de mayo hubiera sido de mucha utilidad para el conocimiento social del proyecto.

10. Lo importante ahora es aprender de los posibles errores y sentar las bases de un EQUO nítidamente verde, fuerte, autónomo, reconocible e implantado.

David Hammerstein

"La primera quema la grasa y te ahorra dinero, el segundo quema el dinero y te llena de grasa."