Your opportunity to support copyright exceptions and limitations at WIPO

WIPO is currently receiving public comments on the proposed treaty for the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons. This is potentially of immense importance, being the first time that consideration has been given to lightening the restrictive international copyright regime by including new minimum flexibilities, beginning with the very deserving case of the blind. You are encouraged to post your own comments to WIPO using the link above. Consumers International's comment, pending moderation, is as follows:

Consumers International has long been a strong supporter of the proposed treaty for blind and visually impaired persons and for other people with reading or print disabilities. We have spoken to this effect at the last two meetings of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Unfortunately resource constraints will prevent us from attending the open-ended consultations in May or the 20th meeting of the SCCR, so we are taking the opportunity to post our remarks here instead.

Our frank view is some of those who are suggesting that an international instrument is premature, or that more time is required to assess the need for it, are being insincere. When the WIPO Internet Treaties were passed way back in 1996, at a time when less than 1% of the world’s population had Internet access (compared to about 30% now), the same voices were certainly not describing the treaties as premature or asking for more time to analyse the need for them.

In reality, the objection of these parties – which others are voicing more directly – is that copyright exceptions and limitations, even in such a worthy case as this, should not be given equal legal status to the rights of copyright owners. Specifically, they do not accept that the blind and visually impaired should have the benefit of a treaty to protect their interests, but rather should be satisfied with a non-binding recommendation at most. We are perplexed and also saddened by this attitude.

Copyright has always struck a balance between the public interest in access to knowledge and culture, and the private interest of creators in exploiting a limited monopoly over certain uses of their work. It is important not to lose sight of this balance, especially in cases where human rights and development are involved. This is such a case, which squarely engages both issues of disability rights, and the disparity of access to copyright works by VIPs in the developed and developing worlds.

In our view, the time is more than ripe to begin text-based negotiations. Certainly, this does not mean that the proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay is immutable; indeed, robust discussion can only improve the proposal. However, a general principle that we believe all should be able to accept is that VIPs should not be treated as a second class citizens. Just as rights holders would not be satisfied with a non-binding recommendation to protect their interests, neither are VIPs.