12:45 pm Geneva, Switzerland.

Today, December 15, 2009 at the 19th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at WIPO, member states started to consider the proposed treaty to facilitate access to copyright materials for people with reading disabilities. Ecuador, Brazil and Paraguay, the sponsors of the treaty briefly presented their proposal. We then had a break for lunch and attended an informal session. On the table right outside of the main room, I found a joint statement dated of SCCR 17 (November 2008) opposing the treaty.

There will be new participants at the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (Nineteenth Session) Geneva, December 14 to 18, 2009.

Here is the lists of non-governmental organizations, which have requested to be granted observer status in sessions of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), according to SCCR’s Rules of Procedure (see document SCCR/1/2, paragraph 10).

• African Union of the Blind (AFUB)
• All India Confederation of the Blind (AICB)
• Asociación Civil Tiflonexos – Biblioteca Tiflolibros (Tiflolibros),

Attached are several reply comments to the Copyright Office and the USPTO regarding the WIPO draft proposal to facilitate access to copyrighted works for persons, who are blind or have other reading disabilities, in response to the Federal Register Notice of October 13, 2009.

The deadline for filing was Friday, December 4, 2009. Eventually the Copyright Office will publish all of the reply comments on the Internet, and we will provide a link.

We now have comments received from various parties, including:

Washington, DC. December 1, 2009. Five of the nation’s most prominent public interest groups today called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to block the proposed merger by entertainment giants Ticketmaster and Live Nation. DOJ is currently reviewing the merger and is expected to make a decision in the next month. The organizations include Consumer Action, the National Consumers League (NCL), the American Antitrust Institute, the Consumer Federation of America and Knowledge Ecology International.

Now that we know who are the people opposed to an international treaty to facilitate access and sharing of accessible formats of works for blind people and people with reading disabilities, let’s read what their arguments against the treaty are.

I was able to highlight 10 main arguments and you can check in their own words below if you do not believe me:

I am often asked "who on earth would oppose a treaty to facilitate access to information and knowledge to people with reading disabilities?" Please read my selected quotes from the comments posted today on the Copyright office page here. But I would also like to highlight some really positive and supporting comments about the treaty. There are more of them than the negative ones but do they have the same weight?

The American Council of the Blind (ACB) and the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) submitted their comments in response to a Notice of Inquiry put forth by the United States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). ACB is a leading U.S. consumer organization of blind or visually impaired individuals. Access to information is a critical area of interest for ACB, and expanding the availability of accessible format materials is viewed as highly beneficial to the blindness community in the United States and throughout the world.

The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) consists of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association of Research Libraries.

Collectively, the ALA, ACRL and ARL represent over 139,000 libraries in the United States employing approximately 350,000 librarians and other personnel.

Today Benetech, a leading Silicon Valley technology nonprofit and operator of the Bookshare online library for people with print disabilities submitted comments to the US Copyright Office and the USPTO on the topic of access to copyrighted works for people with print disabilities. Here are the major points, the submission is attached at the end of this blog.

Today five groups filed the attached comments to the U.S. Copyright Office and the USPTO regarding the WIPO draft proposal to facilitate access to copyrighted works for persons, who are blind, have visual impairments and other reading disabilities in response to the Federal Register Notice of October 13, 2009.

The comments were signed by

• Dr. Manon Ress, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)

This is a note about the leaked ACTA documents, that have been reported now by several news organizations and bloggers.*

On September 30, 2009, the EU wrote a three page memo on the Internet chapter of ACTA. This is about a week after the USTR held a secret meeting with selected corporate lobbyists and lawyers to debate the ACTA Internet under terms of a tough non-disclosure agreement.

In a February 2009 article, I described why we need a Word Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty for people with reading disabilities and why the US delegation at WIPO should support the WBU proposal and even become a leading force promoting it in its new form, a proposal by the governments of Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay tabled at WIPO in May 2009.

Protection of broadcasting organizations

16. The committee expressed its appreciation for the information session on developments in broadcasting which focused on concerns of developing and least developed countries

These are the draft conclusions regarding the audiovisual performances. The delegates had very few comments, so what you see here is more or less what the final paper will look like.

Protection of audiovisual performances

11. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the seminars organized by the Se. and encouraged the Sec to continue that activity

12. The Committee reaffirmed its commitment to work on developing the international protection of performances in audiovisual media.

These are the draft conclusions distributed by the chair regarding item 5 of the agenda (i.e. limitations and exceptions). The paper was distributed before the lunch break (1-3pm). The delegates are consulting on it and will come back at 3pm. The final text will be modified of course but this is a good start.

SCCR 18 DRAFT CONCLUSIONS OF THE SSCR prepared by the chair
Limitations and exceptions