Sobre la encarnizada lucha de la industria cultural y las leyes del copyright contra el bien común y los derechos de acceso a los bienes culturales por parte de las personas ciegas.

Comentarios sobre la conferencia diplomática de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual sobre el acceso a la lectura de las personas con discapacidad visual celebrada en Marrakech y su finalidad de establecer un tratado global que regule la excepción a los derechos del copyright para las personas invidentes.

Curiosamente, la palabra “equilibrio” está siendo una de las más utilizadas en las actuales discusiones sobre un Tratado para las Personas con Discapacidad Visual a pesar de su inutilidad para describir y comprender los problemas de acceso a la lectura que padecen las personas con diversidad de grados de ceguera. Este eufemístico lenguaje del deseable "equilibrio" entre los derechos y los beneficios económicos particulares, en realidad busca fomentar la confusión al servicio del dominio del negocio económico frente a los derechos básicos de minorías discriminadas como son los ciegos. Muchos de los delegados participantes hablan retóricamente en favor de conseguir un “equilibrio” entre las necesidades de millones de personas ciegas existentes en el mundo y los derechos de los propietarios privados de copyright. Se trata de toda una interesada orquestación para evitar la consecución de un digno y avanzado Tratado para la regulación mundial de derechos de las personas invidentes.

Lo que realmente está en juego en Marrakech no es alcanzar este falso “equilibrio” sino el corregir la multiplicada e inmoral discriminación que padecen las personas ciegas, quienes además de sufrir unas graves limitaciones físicas por su escasa o nula capacidad visual, también son marginadas socialmente en el acceso a la cultura y a los productos de una industria editorial que ya goza de muchas leyes para proteger sus  particulares beneficios económicos. Un injusto y desigual trato es el que se da por un lado a las personas videntes que sí pueden acceder a la lectura de millones de libros y por otro lado el que se da a los invidentes, quienes han sido privados de muchas de las facilidades y oportunidades para el acceso a la cultura obtenidas mediante la revolución de las tecnologías de la información.

El tratado de regulación mundial que se negocia en Marrakech debe apostar por reparar esta gran injusticia, algo que es bien opuesto a la palabrería del "equilibrio", que resulta ser todo un parloteo para instaurar por la puerta trasera nuevas normas restrictivas en favor de la propiedad intelectual. Contrariamente, el fundamento principal de este nuevo tratado que se está negociando es el de eliminar unas condiciones de intensa discriminación y de violación de los derechos humanos de las personas con disfunciones visuales, algo bien opuesto al intento de imponer bajo los argumentos del "equilibrio" nuevas medidas represivas en favor de los derechos privados de propiedad intelectual sobre los países empobrecidos del Sur.

Es una triste verdad el comprobar que los lobbistas de Hollywood y de la industria editorial están buscando al unísono la perversión del tratado que está a punto de nacer al querer convertirlo en un simple vehículo para levantar nuevas y más altas barreras contra la reforma del sistema mundial del copyright. Estos sectores económicos quieren imponer en la nueva regulación del tratado unas medidas draconianas de protección técnica (de gestión de derechos digitales) y buscan eliminar cualquier referencia legal al posible “uso justo” de las obras culturales. También quieren quitar cualquier referencia al derecho a la traducción y buscan consagrar la obligación de anteponer siempre el interés y la racionalidad económica bajo el rutinario lenguaje de la “disponibilidad comercial”, y con ello oponerse a cualquier tipo de excepción al copyright, queriendo hasta prohibir el envío de libros a individuos particulares. Por ello, en Marrakech se han aliado los lobbistas de la industria audio-visual y los lobbistas de los propietarios de derechos de copyright con el fin de forzar el avance de la dominación neocolonial en materia cultural.

La creación de nueva regulación con nuevas normas globales sobre excepciones al copyright para personas ciegas, no es solo un intento de inyectar una dosis de mínimo sentido común sobre las exigencias de la justicia en el contexto de un carcomido sistema legal que está gravemente inadaptado a la era digital actual. También se podría entender este tratado que se está negociando como una forma de ayudar a elevar la legitimación y el apoyo social de un marco legal de copyright que tiene un nivel bajísimo de aceptación ciudadana.

A lo largo de los últimos meses hemos oído repetidamente la misma cantinela en boca de los representantes industriales: que si se permite un fácil acceso a las producciones culturales por parte de las personas ciegas se “debilitaría gravemente el derecho internacional de copyright”. Algunos de estos portavoces europeos y estadounidenses llegan al extremo de dejarse llevar por una aguda paranoia persecutoria sobre una hipotética piratería por parte de las personas invidentes, aunque en realidad estas suposiciones nunca han estado respaldadas por evidencia empírica alguna.

Es especialmente tenebrosa la doble vara de medir empleada por parte de los gobiernos de la UE y de EE.UU. Resulta que mientras que los EE.UU y los estados nacionales miembros de la UE tienen unas sencillas y eficaces excepciones nacionales al copyright para las personas con discapacidad visual, ahora, cuando se trata de un marco normativo y legislativo de escala mundial, va y resulta que la UE y los EE.UU se niegan tajantemente a extender al resto del mundo estas reglas legales que ya son aplicadas en las propias políticas nacionales. ¿Como es que si han funcionado razonablemente bien unas leyes con excepciones al copyright en EE.UU y Europa, en cambio no resultan válidas a escala global para el conjunto de países?. Además, la alianza EU-USA en Marrakech ahora busca añadir al nuevo tratado internacional múltiples capas que ponen más obstáculos y complicaciones en favor de nuevas restricciones al libre acceso a los bienes culturales y el conocimiento, intentando ir mucho más allá de las propias leyes domésticas de sus respectivos países. Ni los Estados Unidos ni la Unión Europea quieren la inclusión en el tratado de excepciones como las del “uso justo” (fair use) y las de los “tratos razonables”, puesto que ambos son términos legales flexibles que amplían y facilitan el acceso a bienes culturales sin ánimo de lucro y que predominan en el marco legislativo del copyright estadounidense. A pesar de que no hay clausulas de “disponibilidad comercial” ni en EE.UU ni en la gran mayoría de países de la UE, cuando se trata de un nuevo tratado como este destinado a la regulación mundial impulsan una vil doble moral: ambos quieren meter la normativa de la "disponibilidad comercial" en la letra del Tratado para las Personas con Discapacidad Visual.

A lo largo de años de debate y discusiones previas también se ha dado un clamoroso déficit democrático y una falta de transparencia por parte de la Unión Europea. Las duras posiciones negociadoras defendidas por los representantes de la UE, no solo están en contra de las posiciones adoptadas por la Unión Mundial de Ciegos, sino que contrastan radicalmente con las declaraciones votadas por los representantes democráticamente elegidos en el Parlamento Europeo, que han apoyado activamente la necesidad de un tratado eficaz, simple y orientado fundamentalmente a los fines de una justicia humanitaria compensadora. Pero por desgracia, el mandato negociador de la UE ha hecho caso omiso del sentir democrático de la ciudadanía europea y de sus representantes europarlamentari@s al haberse forjado en la opacidad, el secretismo y en los patios traseros del Consejo Europeo de los estados miembros. Los negociadores de la UE han priorizado los estrechos intereses del beneficio económico para algunos sectores de la industria cultural por encima del bien común que supone el acceso a los bienes culturales por parte de muchas personas marginadas doblemente por sus limitaciones físicas y por las múltiples discriminaciones sociales que se les añaden. 

Finalmente, esta semana en Marrakech las delegaciones de la UE y de los EE.UU están siendo arrastradas contra su propia voluntad para ir cediendo poco a poco en sus posiciones iniciales a consecuencia del peso de las profundas razones éticas, sociales y económicas de los numerosos países empobrecidos y de las numerosas organizaciones ciudadanas que defienden el acceso a la cultura por parte de las personas invidentes. Es de esperar que se llegue a un acuerdo de mínimos que saque adelante un digno texto para el tratado, aunque se haga a regañadientes, pataleando y protestando por la “erosión del copyright”, y aunque no parta de una profunda convicción en favor de unas exigencias de justicia para las minorías con discapacidad visual discriminadas en el acceso al conocimiento y la cultura.

David Hammerstein

Diálogo Transatlántico de Consumidores

Lessons from ACTA and the future

Nunca había visto tal nivel de unidad política para machacar a un Comisario Europeo como anoche en el Parlamento Europeo cuando el jefe del Mercado Interno Michel Barnier recibió una verdadera paliza dialéctica por no haber apoyado un Tratado vinculante eficaz para las personas con discapacidad visual. Hoy se aprobó en el Parlamento Europeo una resolución fuerte a favor del Tratado y muy crítico con el papel de la Unión Europea en la OMPI. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7-2012-0062&language=ES

A continuación algunas de las expresiones utilizadas por los eurodiputados al criticar al comisario Barnier:  "Falta de sensibilidad", "un doble rasero de medir", "Estamos muy irritados con usted", "Su posición es muy decepcionante", "La UE practica el obstruccionismo en la OMPI", "La UE bloquea pasos hacia adelante", "El Tratado no es caridad, es una cuestión de derecho", "Es una locura que los formatos digitales no posibilitan un acceso masivo a la lectura", "Usted solo habla bla, bla, bla..",  "Para cuestiones económicas hay reglas vinculantes pero para derechos de las personas ciegas solo recomendaciones voluntarias", "No utilices a los creadores como una barrera", "No comprendo la rigidez de la Comisión en este tema" y "los derechos de autor son una gran barrera para el acceso a la lectura".

Sin una escapatoria política fácil, totalmente acorralado y bajo una gran presión, el Comisario Barnier primero inútilmente intentaba escabullirse con unas vagas promesas de "diálogo abierto con la sociedad civil", "dejar todas las opciones abiertas" y "queremos una solución pragmática".  Finalmente Barnier se vio obligado a asumir el compromiso público de pedir un mandato a la Comisión y al Consejo (los estados miembros de la UE) para negociar un Tratado vinculante y eficaz en la OMPI. Afirmó que no seria fácil ya que algunos estados se oponían al Tratado. Pidió apoyo al Parlamento para conseguirlo.
Por fin,  el brazo ejecutivo de la Unión Europea apoya un Tratado para las personas con discapacidad visual. Si, una excepción legal al derecho de autor.

News from the copyright bunker

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]

ORAL STATEMENT BEFORE WIPO SSCR22 BY DAVID HAMMERSTEIN, TACD  26-6-2011

SHOWDOWN IN GENEVA: COPYRIGHT VS. HUMAN RIGHTS FOR BLIND PERSONS

 Filibusterism and lack of democratic legitimacy against the right to read of the visually impaired


After years of campaigning on the part of blind persons NGOs, consumers and human rights groups, the World Intellectual Property Organization is finally having a special 3 day session on creating an exception to copyright for reading material formatted for millions of visually impaired persons. Will the international community assume its responsibility to satisfy the fundamental right to read for disabled persons?

The fight for access to reading material for the visually impaired is facing an unprecedented attempt at filibustering on the part of the EU and the US. This obstructionism of a legally binding treaty takes many forms: numerous changes in the agenda for an issue over-due for years, endless technical debates and, more importantly, now an attempt to paralyze indefinitely any move towards a legally binding international treaty until "voluntary" and "soft" solutions are tried.
       

As well as practicing filibusterism to avoid considering a legal exception to copyright the EU and it member states have a problem of democratic legitimacy. The EU is ignoring the opinion of its democratically elected representatives, the European Parliament, who voted on May 12th of this year to support  a legally binding Treaty for the Visually Impaired based on the proposal of the World Blind Union.

One has to ask the question: Who exactly do the EU member states represent here? In any open, transparent democratic debate they would have no choice but to support a legal treaty for the visually impaired.  But, instead, despite all the evidence and the majority position of the MEPs, they prefer the lack of transparency, the obscurity of back room deals with content industry lobbyists.This is ethically and morally shameful.

 Today at WIPO the EU representatives and EU member states suffer from lack of  democratic credibility and transparency.

As far as the content of the proposals for a common framework go, why do the EU and the US want to impose incredibly restrictive, expensive and unworkable conditions for cross border exchange of books on the global South when these restricts go light years beyond their own internal laws? Why are the US and EU suggesting tortuous second class treatment for millions of visually impaired persons in the developing countries when domestic EU and US laws are far more flexible and generous? Can it be that  what is good for copyright exceptions at home is not good for the rest of the world? Why do they feel blind organizations should first get the permission of rights holders to distribute works when this is not the case in most countries of the North. If no empirical evidence has been produced to show any economic harm caused by exceptions to copyright in the EU and the US, how can some EU countries possibly speak of "disproportionate harm" in the case a treaty is approved globally?

While the EU and the US still insist on "recommendations" and "stakeholder dialogues", we all know that voluntary arrangements have never worked. While the EU and US push "hard" legal treaties for performers and broadcasters, why do they only promote "soft" law for the visually impaired?
 
At the end of the day this debate is not really about  exceptions, it is about legally permitting the widespread movement  of reading materials across borders just as they flow within most Northern countries. There is very little real danger of increased violation of copyright with a global exception. If someone violates the terms of the exception, they could face prosecution according to laws already on the books in most countries. An exception does not at all mean opening the gates to anarchy, it has not happened inside the countries where exception for the visually impaired are already in place.

     Many countries of the North place all hope for the access of books on a voluntary "stakeholders process" that today is a farce.  The Stakeholder process today is only a one-sided publishers and rights-holders forum because the European Blind Union and the World Blind Union are not participating in it until a global legal norm approved by WIPO.  So the EU´s un-democratic proposal of focussing on the stakeholder processes both inside and outside the EU is not even viable because it is seen by blind persons groups as only a weak excuse used by the EU for not supporting the Treaty.

     The latest form of  filibusterism, or endless procrastination, on the part of the EU and US has taken on the form of   the so-called "2 step process": "first we try a voluntary recommendation for a number of years and, then, if it does not work, we might consider a treaty".  In the process, "we get these bothersome NGOs and blind persons groups off our backs, we push the issue off the WIP agenda for 3 to 5 years and we gain the eternal gratitude of a few publishers in their ideological battle". At the end of the day, this is a fight more about basic principles than concrete economic interest.

 Unfortunately, today is also time to Name and Shame the outright obstructionism of countries like France and Switzerland who are dragging their feet on any pragmatic agreement on a framework text for helping access to books by the visually impaired.   Spain is also calling for a period of over 5 years of testing voluntary schemes before considering a decision on a treaty. (especially surprising given they seem not to want to share their tens of thousands of formatted Spanish books for blind persons with Latin America!).

It is clear that we must choose between strict copyright or human rights. You have that choice.

David Hammerstein, TACD