Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

28 februari 2011

Books for the blind in JURI: Win!

Postat i: Books for the Blind,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 19:12

The legal affairs committee in the European Parliament today voted in support of a treaty for books for the blind

Today the legal affairs committee JURI in the European Parliament today unanimously adopted an amendment supporting a binding WIPO treaty to give visually impaired and print disabled persons access to books that have been converted to accessible formats in other countries.

You can read more about the problem, and why a binding international treaty is needed, here.

The next step in getting the European Parliament to express its support for such a treaty will be a vote in the cultural committee CULT. I do not have an official date for the vote in CULT yet, but it appears it will be some time in March.

If the cultural committee accepts the amendment as well, it will be voted in plenary as part of the report Unlocking the potential of the cultural and creative industries some time later this spring.

There is still a long process ahead before any treaty on this subject becomes a reality, but today’s vote in JURI was an encouraging first step. And it was of course extra encouraging that all the political groups supported the amendment in that committee.

Now we’ll see what happens in CULT.

…………

Picture by Christian Engström, free for publication CC0

Tags: , , ,

18 februari 2011

Briefing: A WIPO treaty on books for print disabled

Postat i: Books for the Blind,Copyright Reform,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 15:42

The briefing from the EBU is available as pdf as well

The legal affairs committee JURI in the European Parliament will vote on amendments to a report called ”Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries” on February 28. Amendment 21 to the report is about adopting an international WIPO treaty to give blind people better access to book in accessible formats (such as for instance Braille).

The European Blind Union
EBU has sent a briefing to all members of the JURI committee. It explains the problem, and why a WIPO treaty is needed to solve it. I copy the briefing from the EBU here:

WIPO treaty on limitations and exceptions for the print disability community

1. The problem we are trying to solve

Even in 2011, blind people and others living with a print disability such as those with dyslexia still have very limited access to books and other published works. Only some 5% of published books are ever made accessible in richer countries, and less than 1% in poorer ones. We call this a “book famine”.

Increasingly, affordable and rapidly developing technology such as e-books is becoming accessible to print disabled people. This digital revolution ought to help end the book famine by allowing us to share accessible books worldwide.

However, copyright law has not changed in line with the technology. Often copyright law prevents both the making of accessible books at national level and the sharing of them across national borders.

2. What is the WBU WIPO Treaty? (“The treaty”)

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) makes treaties and other international laws on intellectual property rights such as copyright and patents.

The World Blind Union, assisted by copyright experts, drafted the treaty proposal. The governments of Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay then tabled it at WIPO in 2009.

The treaty proposal would:

  • Make it legal for print disabled individuals and specialist organisations to make accessible copies of published works in all countries which sign the treaty
  • Make it legal for accessible books to be sent internationally without permission for publishers
  • Prevent contracts with publishers from undermining copyright exceptions for print disabled people (currently they sometimes do)
  • Still respect copyright law: it is not an attack on publishers!

The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which meets twice a year, is considering the WBU treaty proposal. Its June 2011 session will have an extra three days to specifically consider the WBU proposal and three others that have since been tabled to deal with the issue of print disability.

3. Why we need a treaty

There are several reasons, but here are the main two:

1. Only one third of the world’s countries have a national exception to copyright law to allow the making and distribution of accessible format books. All countries need such an exception, because publishers often fail to help by making their books accessible or authorising specialist organisations to do so. The treaty would create such exceptions.

2. The national nature of copyright law prevents the import and export of accessible books. The treaty would remove this legal barrier to sharing resources across borders. That would allow many hundreds of thousands of books to circulate between blind people’s organisations in different countries.

4. But aren’t the “EU Stakeholder Dialogue” and the WIPO “Stakeholder Platform” better / speedier / more effective solutions?

No. These are at best partial solutions. They will never provide the same level of coverage that a binding international treaty could do.

Furthermore, our goodwill in taking part in these platforms is constantly being unfairly used politically by rights holders such as IFRRO to suggest that thanks to these platforms no binding law, such as our treaty, is needed. (See this on the IFRRO site, for example).

The fact is, after two years of the WIPO Stakeholder Dialogue we have not yet exchanged a single book, and the same goes for the 14 months since the EU Stakeholder Dialogue.

Whilst we want to work with publishers on appropriate licenses, those they are proposing for these dialogues are far too complicated and are a step back from many licensing agreements we have now with publishers.

In any case, these agreements are by their nature more subject to change than a hard law. They also are at best only appropriate for developed country organisations with big resources. Even a big developed country organisation, ONCE, has now refused to continue with the Stakeholder Platform process and others are reconsidering their position at the time of writing.

5. Why not accept one of the alternatives to the treaty being proposed at WIPO?

The African group, the European Union and the USA have all made their own proposals at the WIPO SCCR within the last year to “solve” the copyright barriers print disabled people face.

The African group proposal is a near copy of the WBU proposal, but it adds in a range of other issues such as libraries and education. As a result it is not politically acceptable to a significant number of WIPO Member States. This is because many are prepared to make a law on access for print disabled people but are less ready to do so on the other issues Africa has inserted into its proposal. So whilst we understand the wider aspirations of the African group, it is not likely the proposal will advance as it stands.

The EU proposal is frankly too weak and complicated. The EU proposes only a WIPO “Joint Recommendation”, which means that unlike the WBU treaty, the EU proposal would not produce a legally binding law.

The EU proposal also requires blind people’s organisations to ask for a license from rights holders to export accessible works. We can do that now and are slowly pursuing this where possible with publishers! This EU licensing requirement makes no sense, since a law allowing export is needed most especially for cases where it has not been possible to obtain a license from a publisher!

The EU proposal also makes much of a system of accredited “Trusted Intermediaries”. To be brief, such a system would allow publishers a veto over which blind people’s organisations can use the “Joint Recommendation”. This is a regression from the usual practice in copyright law and would make the provision of accessible books harder rather than easier.

The USA proposal for a so-called “Draft Consensus Instrument” is similar to the EU’s effort. It would also be non-binding, and also insists on a system of Trusted Intermediaries which carries therefore the danger of a publisher “veto” mentioned above.

The European Blind Union 2011

This makes sense to me, and I see no reason not to support a treaty. I hope all colleagues in the JURI committee will join me in supporting Amendment 21 in the vote next Monday.

…………

Tags: , , ,

13 februari 2011

An amendment for books for the blind

Postat i: Books for the Blind,Copyright Reform,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 13:16

Blind people are forbidden to read books that have been produced in other countries

Blind people are not allowed to read books that are available in Braille or other accessible formats, if the book has been converted in a country other than the one they live in.

For example, blind people in Britain are not allowed to read US Braille books, and blind people in the US are not allowed to read British books. Blind people in Sweden are not allowed to read English Braille books from either Britain or the US.

The reason for this is our copyright legislation. There are exceptions to copyright that allow non-profit organizations to make books accessible to visually impaired people, without the publisher’s consent. But these exceptions are all on the national level.

If a book exists in an accessible format in one country, the publisher’s consent is still needed to export the accessible book. But in practice, the book publishers typically refuse to give that consent. The result is a shortage of books in accessible formats, especially in the developing world, but here in Europe as well.

The blind peoples’ organizations call this the ”book famine”.

The solution to this problem would be to have an international treaty saying that when a non-profit organization has converted a book in one country, visually impaired people in other countries may read it as well.

The World Blind Union has drafted such an treaty, and tabled it at the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO in 2009. But the book publishers’ associations are opposed to it. They want to keep the voluntary nature of the arrangements that exist today, even though it means blind people are not allowed to read books from other countries.

The European Union has unfortunately sided with the book publishers, and is opposed to a treaty in WIPO. The resistance to the treaty comes from the Commission and from many or all of the member states (including, for example, Sweden).

I think this is a disgrace. The book publishers would not even lose any money from setting the accessible books free, since they do not actually sell any accessible versions of their books themselves. But even if they did, the interests of visually impaired people all over the world would take precedence.

Not solving this problem immediately is just plain immoral.

The EU Parliament is right now working on an own initiative report called Unlocking the potential of the cultural and creative industries. It is a wide-ranging report on many different aspects of the cultural industries, but the issue of solving the book famine fits in there.

Together with my colleague MEP Eva Lichtenberger (Greens, AT) I have tabled the following amendment to the report in the legal affairs committee JURI:

Amendment 21

5 a (new). Stresses the need to finally address the ”book famine” experienced by visually impaired and print disabled people; reminds the Commission and Member States of their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats, and to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials; calls on the Commission to work actively and positively within the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO to agree on a binding legal norm, based on the treaty proposal drafted by the World Blind Union and tabled at WIPO in 2009;

In the best of worlds, this would not be controversial at all. The first sentence says that we need to solve the book famine problem. I hope everybody agrees with that.

The second sentence is just cut-and-paste from Article 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Most or all of the EU member states have signed this convention, so it ought to be uncontroversial that we should abide by it. Intellectual property laws may not be used as unreasonable barriers against disabled people.

And the last sentence is just what the European Blind Union EBU is proposing as a solution to the problem. It is a reasoned and balanced proposal, and I would have hoped that all political institutions would support it wholeheartedly without any further prompting.

But the political reality is not quite that easy.

The amendment will be voted in the JURI committee on February 28. If it gets a majority there, it will get passed to the cultural committee CULT for a new vote a couple of days later.

If the amendment has made it through both JURI and CULT, it will be part of the report Unlocking the potential of the cultural and creative industries when that report is voted in plenary some time later this spring.

If the report is adopted with the amendment, this will be the official position of the European Parliament. From there, the next step will be to put pressure on the EU Commission and the Member States to start supporting the treaty.

At the EBU website, you can read more about the European Commission’s opposition to a binding treaty.

It is a long way to go, but we have to start somewhere. The EU’s current opposition to a WIPO treaty for visually impaired and print disabled people is a disgrace. It’s time to change it.

…………

Tags: , , ,

11 februari 2011

Russia Today tar upp FRA-lagen

Postat i: FRA,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 12:04

Artikel och inslag hos Russia Today (på engelska)

Nyhetsprogrammet Russia Today sände ett inslag i morse om den svenska FRA-lagen, med utgångspunkt från ett Wikileakstelegrammet UUNCLAS Stockholm 000704. Det visar hur det var påtryckningar från USA som låg bakom lagen.

Ur rysk synvinkel är det förstås extra intressant att ett av argumenten för FRA-lagen i den svenska debatten var att det var rysk transittrafik som skulle avlyssnas, snarare än vanliga svenskar.

Jag medverkar i ett par avsnitt i inslaget och artikeln och berättar bland annat hur ett av argumenten för FRA-lagen var att syftet inte var att spionera på svenskar, utan att övervaka bland annat rysk transittrafik.

Länk till Russia Todays inslag och artikel.

Henrik Alexandersson kommenterar, och berättar att Rick Falkvinge ska diskutera affären live i Russia Today senare ikväll.

…………

Andra som skriver om ämnet: Nyheter24, Fredriks blogg

Tags: , , ,

10 februari 2011

Bra av regeringen om nätneutralitet

Postat i: informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 11:01

Post- och telestyrelsen ska se till att mobiloperatörer inte blockerar Skype

Regeringen kommer idag att klubba ett förslag som gör att mobiloperatörer inte får blockera Skype och annan IP-telefoni, rapporterar TT, som hittat nyheten hos SVT Rapport.

Det är ett bra beslut.

I den bästa av alla världar skulle det inte behövas regleringar för att få de mobila internetoperatörerna att bete sig på ett juste sätt mot sina kunder, men tyvärr är det inte den världen vi lever i.

I de flesta länder i Europa använder mobiloperatörerna sin oligopolställning för att blockera IP-telefoni och försöka bromsa den tekniska utvecklingen när den slår mot deras möjligheter att mjölka konsumenterna på pengar. Det hade varit bra om det hade funnits så mycket konkurrens mellan mobiloperatörerna att den sortens missbruk av marknadsställning inte fungerade, men så är det inte.

Därför är det bra att regeringen och Post- och telestyrelsen ingriper.

Nu har jag skrivit ett helt blogginlägg där jag berömmer regeringen för något den gjort inom Piratpartiets politikområden. Det känns väldigt ovant, för jag kan inte på rak arm påminna mig att jag haft anledning att göra det någon enda gång sedan partiet startade 2006. Men jag hoppas jag får tillfälle att göra det fler gånger i framtiden. :)

…………

Andra som skriver om ämnet: SvD, Rick Falkvinge, Anders S Lindbäck, HumbleBee

Tags: , , ,

3 februari 2011

EU vill registrera dina flygresor

Postat i: informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 12:39

Se gårdagens inslag i Rapport om registrering av allas flygresor

EU-kommissionär Cecilia Malmström presenterade igår ytterligare ett förslag om utökad övervakning av oss alla. Den här gången är det uppgifter om våra flygresor som ska samlas in av myndigheterna och sparas i fem år. Registreringen ska gälla oss alla, helt utan att det finns någon konkret brottsmisstanke.

I gårdagens SVT Rapport försvarade Cecilia Malmström förslaget med att det behövs för att bekämpa terrorism och allvarlig brottslighet. Jag håller inte med.

- Jag tycker det är ett dåligt förslag. Det är ytterligare ett steg mot övervakningssamhället, säger jag i Rapports inslag. Alltid när man samlar in uppgifter vet man att de kan missbrukas, och att de kommer att läcka. Och det här är känsliga uppgifter: vilka som har rest till ett visst politiskt möte, eller vem som åker med sin älskare till Paris.

Det finns heller ingenting som tyder på att den här typen av massinsamling av uppgifter om oskyldiga medborgare är särskilt effektivt. När Tyskland gjorde en utvärdering av datalagringsdirektivet (som de har infört, men inte vi) fann de ingen mätbar positiv effekt, vare sig i form av minskad brottslighet eller ökad uppklarningsprocent.

Det finns inget skäl att tro att uppgifter om oskyldiga medborgares resor skulle vara värdefullare än uppgifterna om oskyldiga medborgares mejl och telefonsamtal. Det kostar bara pengar som skulle kunna användas betydligt bättre.

Brott löser man med riktiga poliser som gör riktigt polisarbete, inte med teknologiskt hokus-pokus i form av massövervakning av oskyldiga. Men tyvärr är många styrande politiker av motsatt uppfattning.

Se inslaget i SVT Rapport (börjar 16 minuter in i programmet).

…………

Andra som skriver om förslaget: Henrik Alexandersson

Tags: , , ,

2 februari 2011

Ja, Wikileaks är farligt

Postat i: informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 13:25

Jag och Slovakiens tidigare utrikesminister Eduard Kukan har olika åsikter om Wikileaks

Europaparlamentets sajt har intervjuat mig och kollegan Eduard Kukan (EPP, Slovakien) om Wikileaks.

Utan att avslöja för mycket kan jag säga att vi har olika åsikter. Men jag svarar ja på frågan om Wikileaks är farligt.

Läs mer hos Europaparlamentet.

…………

Tags: , , ,

1 februari 2011

Expressen: Nätcensur där och här

Postat i: informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 10:44

Läs Expressens ledare

Expressen skriver i dagens ledare:

På en enda punkt har den västliga reaktionen på upproret i Egypten varit riktigt klar. Från Rosenbad till Vita huset har man unisont fördömt Mubarak-regimens ”avstängning” av internet. Carl Bildt, Nicolas Sarkozy och Barack Obama har alla framträtt som nätaktivister.

Det är förstås bra att Sverige och andra länder vill säkerställa de kommunikationskanaler som nu sprider folkliga uppror som virus. Men det vore klädsamt om man samtidigt vördade principen om ett fritt internet även på hemmaplan.

Expressen har alldeles rätt i vad de skriver, och det är mycket bra att de tar upp frågan.

Läs hela Expressens ledare.

…………

Tags: , , ,

Tema: Rubric. Blogga med WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers