How can an international NGO negotiate for a Treaty when they have structured a position such that there

is no DownSide to their being totally ignored when if in the USA they would as standard procedure haul such opposing organizations into Court if they could be shown to be denying otherwise guaranteed fundamental rights.

> Following WIPO SCCR24 just who can export what? john miller <121authet Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:39 AM To: Staff at Electronic Frontier Foundation Hello All My name is John Edwin Miller. I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber and the Founder of the (very) small US 501c3 Non Profit 121AuthEnt.org I have recently contacted Ms. Carolina Rossini about my efforts regarding the WIPO SCCR VIP Treaty negotiations but have as of yet not received any reply nor acknowledgement. At least she is being consistent: I have written to Mr. Eddan Katz and Ms. Gwen Hinze in the past with the exact same results. This is what I wrote to Ms. Hinze in 21 DEC 2010 (in part): Hello Ms. Hinze -- My name is John Edwin Miller and I am writing to you from Khon Kaen in rural NE Thailand. I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber and Founder of the 501c3 Non-Profit 121authent.org I have read your statement at WIPO SCCR 21 last month. I am very much involved in the WIPO SCCR proceedings as regards Copyright exceptions for Braille renditions of

copyrighted material. I am preparing a package of Braille renditions of copyrighted materials using both UK and US Copyright exemptions. These are world class materials to which a person who is blind would readily have 'lawful possession' through an in-country English language library as per RNIB definition. Any comments that you might have on this issue would be greatly appreciated... Regards/ JEM and then followed 23 DEC 2010 (in part): Hello Ms. Hinze -It seems to me in effecting your vision of 'defending ... rights in the digital world' EFF has taken 2 principal approaches 1. research and position papers such as your presentation at WIPO SCCR 21 2. Litigation and support of litigation I choose to operate in a third area which is a form of civil disobedience that I refer to as the 'Salt March' -- not in the sense that I am disobeying a clear statute but that the statute can be interpreted in ways other than the commonly accepted wisdom. So I can sum this all up: I am now sending out materials assuming the exemptions as I interpret under both US Copyright Law Section 121 as exempt from Section 602a and the UK (VIP)Act 2002 Section 31A. I have notified directly via email Allan Adler of AAP, Jens Bammel of IPA, and Hugh Jones of the UK Publishers Association that I am so doing... And some day -- if they ever start to take me

seriously -- I may need a little help. I posted the following on TACD-IP.org 13 DEC 2011: I have been reviewing the last 4 WIPO SCCR interventions by the US National Federation of the Blind (NFB). They have employed the words urge, call upon, encouraged, reiterate the need, etc. If you know about the NFB in the USA, they do not use those words: They are a highly litigious organization and will sue you if they have any justifiable legal grounds. They have sued under various Federal and statelevel statutes the US Social Security Administration, United Airlines, the Target Department Store chain, Amazon.com, Florida State University, etc. Their lead outside attorney said at the NFB 2008 Convention in Dallas, TX: When a company believes that its existence in cyberspace immunizes it from the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), but it provides services to schools and universities, then well sue the schools and universities under the (US) Rehab Act and let the businesses know if they want to discriminate (then) we can destroy their business. However in the case of the WIPO Treaty there is no one to sue. No one is breaking any law by preserving the status quo and you certainly cannot sue WIPO which is only the facilitator on behalf of its Member Country delegations. I received the following comment from Mr. XYZ of the RNIB who now also is Chairman of the world-wide DAISY Consortium (in part): If I've understood you properly you advocate a more direct Try-it-and-see-if-you-get-sued approach. As someone from an organisation of disabled people who thinks the copyright problem should be a non-issue, I have great sympathy with this approach. And spent some time a few years ago trying

to get people to adopt it. The problem with that is that around the world the main specialised content funders are government funded agencies; Library of Congress in the US, NOTA in Denmark, Mediabus in Germany for example or substantially funded by government agencies eg Bookshare, Japan Braille Library, China Braille Press. The result is they are unable to take such an approach. And even organisations of Blind people like ONCE in Spain feel unable to take this approach due to reputation and legal risk. To which I responded (in part): I have written to the IPA, AAP, UKPA, Authors Guild, etc. and informed them directly that I AM in fact reproducing & distributing internationally Braille renditions of copyrighted material based upon UK (VIP)Act 2002 31A -- I have never had any response. A small NGO is capable of setting legal precedent just as much as LOC, ONCE, and all the other top-of-the-line outfits that you mention Have you ever heard in the USA of the late Ms. Rosa Parks? The US Civil Rights movement in many ways began when in 1955 Ms. Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus Now Ms. Rossini has written on your website (with links to IP-watch.org 'second class' where I made several extended comments) that you are calling for a binding treaty. On your website you say: Whether defending your rights from attack or seeking front-line justice to establish your rights, EFF

battles for digital freedom in the courts. But now just like the NFB you resort to words like calling or Ms. Hinzes past WIPO SCCR intervention that she is heartened. For an organization like EFF, what kind of nonsense is that? So while you are -- as is NFB -- a highly litigious organization in the USA, when it comes to the international arena you are ineffectual just like the NFB I know you may again be heartened with the Schedule called for in the Conclusions of WIPO SCCR24, but this is what I wrote on the WAMU Kojo show Internet board regarding the interview with Jamie Love/ KEI and Allan Adler /AAP: While I am not privy to the informal discussions at SCCR 24 last month as were the 2 gentlemen on your panel, I will only post this observation: If the Publishers and Net exporter nations such as USA really want to stick the proverbial fork in a binding Treaty, they will let it come to a Diplomatic Conference in 2013 as Mr. Love suggests above and make sure that such conference fails to deliver a Treaty document ... and the 'Civil Society' interests that are proponents of a binding treaty are serving up many ways for the treaty opponents to do just that. So I will conclude by saying I intend to press this matter to the greatest extent my personal time and financial resources will allow. You may choose to support as I asked Ms. Hinze in 2010 or not support these efforts. But if you choose not to, I will also do my best to make sure everyone knows that you were unwilling to help out

someone willing to put themselves at risk. Or, as in the Robert Towne screenplay from Chinatown: I see you like publicity (Mr. Gittes) -- well you're going to get it. Regards to all. / JEM

The following was the previous letter to EFF:

Realpolitik following WIPO SCCR24 JEM To: xyz@eff.org Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Hello Counselor Rossini -- From John Edwin Miller (JEM). Twitter just lends itself to brusque comments -- I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber and the Founder of the (very) small 501c3 Non Profit 121authent.org <121authent.wordpress.org > I wrote this to persons at the US Copyright Office and members of the US WIPO delegation: **** As we are approaching the next WIPO SCCR24 and the discussions that are now represented by SCCR23/7 & SCCR23/5 with the recently released 23/8 comments on libraries, I have the following observations:

IMHO the most tangible developments in entering the SCCR24 session are these: The statement by you and your office to Question 71 of the WIPO Questionnaire as regards exports of 'Specialized Format' renditions of Copyrighted material under existing US Copyright Law as per Sections 602, 106, & 121. The December 2011 Statement by the UK Intellectual Property Office in their Consultation On Copyright: 7.165 Although UK law does not explicitly prevent such accessible works being exported to other countries, licensing schemes that cover this exception do limit use to the EU. In order to help improve access to copyright works by visually impaired people around the world, the Government could make it clear that accessible works made under the UKs exceptions can be exported. This will not prevent other countries preventing import or use in their territories, but could make it easier for the UK to comply with any future international system for sharing these works. It has been my published position that under certain conditions of Section 31A of the UK Copyright VIP Act of 2002 that exports of 'lawful use' materials are already allowed. The interventions of the National Foundation for the Blind (NFB) in the Authors Guild v. Hathi Trust as pertain to Sections 108 and 121 of US Copyright Law.

The statement in the Authors Guild v. Google original settlement document that if your book has been scanned as part of the Hathi Trust project: You should assume that you own a U.S. copyright interest in your Book, unless you are certain that your Book was published in, and that you reside and are located in, one of the few countries that have not had or do not now have copyright relations with the United States. The Copyright Office has published a list of countries with which the United States has copyright relations, available at www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf. All the rest -- while part of the ongoing and necessary diplomatic process -- is just air. *** I later wrote that the NFB participation in the Authors Guild v. HathiTrust lawsuit is significant as it will provide a legal interpretation on just who is and who is not an 'authorized entity' at least within the USA> I would also add to that list the comments of the STM representative Carlo Scollo-Lavizzari in his video remarks to Jamie Love when he says at 11:44 that a WIPO SCCR recommendation might have an impact of a judges decision as to whether exports of copyrighted material in 'specialized format' are allowed. I have said and posted on KEIonline.org, on IP-watch.org, TACD-ip.org and elsewhere that a legal action -- short of an actual treaty -- may be the best option for those in the disability rights community. I have met with some derision but am usually just ignored. I have said that in

negotiating the WBU coalition has created a position where there is no down-side to their ''call' for a binding treaty to be ignored -- and your article no matter how well written does not do so either. Maybe it's time for a change. R/ JEM http://tacd-ip.org/archives/518#comments Comment #2 NB While I would obviously change some things from FEB 2011 when it was written, most all of the Attached Salt March would apply -- except now I also mention Ms. Rosa Parks who changed the whole civil rights arena in the USA merely by refusing to move to the back of the bus. Note: Attached Scribd.com Salt March http://www.scribd.com/doc/39712041/Braille-Salt-March