My name is John Edwin Miller (JEM).

I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille

Transcriber and President of 121AuthEnt.org, an IRS 501c3 Florida Non-Profit Corporation with
a ‘Primary Mission’ to provide Braille and other services to those who are visually impaired. I am
not the ‘largest’ or the ‘leading’ of anything.

I came to this issue strictly as someone who wanted to provide high quality Braille renditions to
persons who were being offered unedited automated Braille translations on a take-it-or-leave-it
basis. I soon learned that if those qualified recipients forwarded any file to me for editing
purposes, they would be in violation of signed agreements and would forfeit Membership rights.

Several US ‘Authorized Entities’ (AEs) or ‘Trusted Intermediaries’ both in the USA and abroad
among other related opinions have made the statement that their copyright exemption privileges
stop at their national border… That is probably true. Both the US Copyright Act Section 121
‘Chafee Amendment’ and UK Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act of 2002 specifically
state either directly or through license that such is the case for Organizations i.e. that any
recipient of specialized format materials directly from an NGO Organization or Non-Profit AE
must be a citizen or otherwise qualified resident of that country.

The case can be argued, however, that both the USA and UK laws have provisions whereby
persons working in a one-for-one or indirect basis can distribute under specified conditions
materials in specialized format to qualified persons across national borders…

Under the UK (VIP)A 2002 copies of materials protected by UK Copyright Law (1988) made
under provisions of 31A can be distributed to persons who are not citizens of the UK.

(Sullivan study, WIPO Document 15_7): UK Export to individuals > Probably permitted

I sent the following letter to persons all of whom have participated in previous US Copyright
Office SCCR comment sessions and/or the actual WIPO meetings in Geneva:

(Begin Letter) 

Dear ‐‐ My name is (JEM). I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber.  

Under Section 31A of the UK Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons ) Act 2002, a Braille copy can be 
made of a literary or dramatic work which is qualified for UK Copyright Law protection so long as the as 
the qualified visually‐impaired recipient has "lawful possession" or "lawful use" of a hard copy version of 
the book. According to the RNIB: 

If you are visually impaired, you can make, or ask anyone to make for you, a single accessible 
copy of anything of which you have "lawful possession" or "lawful use".  
 
This can cover anything that you have bought, been given or lent, or that is held in a library that 
you are eligible to use.  
 
 
http://www.rnib.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/accesstoinformation/copyrightcampaign/Pages/Copyrig
ht_Act_2002.aspx#H2Heading8 
 
While there have been published statements ‐‐ among them by Pinsent Masons, LLP (UK) and the RNIB 
itself ‐‐  that the Copyright (VIP)A 2002 does not allow for export of a (Braille) copy of a book to a 
qualified visually‐impaired person outside of the UK, that language is nowhere mentioned in the 2002 
Act itself and only comes into play via the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd (CLA) VIP mandatory license 
which applies solely to copies made by organizations under provisions of 31B.  

CLA VIP LICENSE (2003)  

2.1.2 Distribute Licensed Copies to Authorised Persons within the United Kingdom; 
 
The mandatory Licensing scheme for a 31B organization is contained in 31D: 

 
31D(1) Section 31B does not apply to the making of an accessible copy in a particular form if— 

(a) A licensing scheme operated by a licensing body is in force ... 

 
Pinsent Masons at < http://www.out‐law.com/page‐10059 >: 

(Also), the UK law, like equivalent laws in other countries, does not allow the supply of a digital 
book to a customer overseas. 

Dan Pescod, European and International Campaigns Manager, RNIB  (via DAISY Planet, June 
2009), states that RNIB as a 31B organization under the CLA licensing scheme:  

"If we make an accessible version of a book in the UK and want to send that to another English‐speaking 
country where they don't have the resources to make books accessible, we should be able to do that," 
Pescod said.  

"But the copyright law as it stands doesn't allow the transfer of that accessible info. The exceptions in 
place in national legislations stop at the border. 
 
In contrast, the US Copyright Act at Section 121(d)(2) 'Chafee Amendment' specifically states that the 
any qualified recipient must be a US citizen or with other residency status as defined in the 1931 Pratt‐
Smoot Act (which established in that year the Division for the Blind at the Library of Congress now know 
as the NLS). 
 
Therefore, if a person in Thailand ‐‐ who is registered with the Thai Government as a person who is blind 
or visually impaired ‐‐ or Spain, or South Africa, or Gibraltar has "lawful possession" or "lawful use" of a 
hard‐copy version of a book first published in the UK or otherwise qualified for Copyright Law protection 
by the (UK) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, I will proceed on the basis that I can lawfully and 
without infringement make for that person a digital Braille BRF copy of that book so long as I and that 
person continue to be in full compliance with provisions of Copyright (VIP)A 2002 31A. 
 
Thank you. 
 
(JEM) 
 
http://121authent.org/BRF_Files_Available.aspx 
 
Attachment: (VIP)A 31A Braille Header for To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee 

This Braille transcription is made under the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act
2002, an act to permit, without infringement of copyright, the transfer of copyright
works to formats accessible to visually impaired persons, as specified in Section 31A of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 of the United Kingdom.

Copyright 1960 by Harper Lee. Published by Heinemann, London, 1960.

Transcribed 2007 by (JEM)

Volume One of 3 Volumes

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
by HARPER LEE

For Mr. Lee and Alice

in consideration of Love & Affection

Lawyers, I suppose, were children once. --Charles Lamb =

(End of Letter)

As per Section 121(b)(1)(B) of US Copyright Act, qualified persons who have received materials
from an Authorized Entity can – so long as they remain in not “other than a specialized format” -
- reproduce and distribute those materials as per

Section 121 b1B: Copies or phonorecords to which this section applies shall bear a notice that 
any further reproduction or distribution in a format other than a specialized format is an 
infringement;

Any agreement signed that would counteract or restrict such wording might prove
unenforceable.

Section 121 US Copyright Act does not grant ‘Rights’ to an Authorized entity or anybody else; it
merely defines two conditions that do not constitute ‘Infringement of Copyright’:
 1) When an Authorized Entity reproduces and distributes a covered material in a
Specialized Format and then distributes that material IN a Specialized format to a
Qualified Individual. (Section 121a)
2) When a qualified Individual who has received such material – and by virtue of reading
such in the required notice – reproduces and distributes that material in not ‘other than’
a specialized format. (Section 121b1B)

That was the interpretation as represented in the interpretation that I received directly from the
US Copyright Office in 2007.

(Begin Letter) Subject: interpretation of Section 121(b)(1)(B)

I am a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber as of August 2003. 

The disclaimer for the above states: "further reproduction or distribution in a format other than 
a specialized format is an infringement;" 

Can it therefore be inferred that, if a Braille readable file (BRF) is legitimately received from an 
'authorized entity', and the specialized format remains intact, that the file so received can be 
'further' distributed without infringement? 

Some have suggested that, even given the statute language, that the drafters of the statute 
really meant to so that NO further reproduction or distribution is allowed under any 
circumstances whether in specialized format or otherwise. Yet the drafters very specifically 
made this exception to 'further' distribution or reproduction. 

This issue relates to my ability to edit and format BRF files received by persons who have 
legitimately received such materials but are dissatisfied with the quality of the Braille work so 
received. 

Thank you. 

(JEM)  Question submitted at 23:58 on 5/28/07 

From: "Copyright Information" <copyinfo@loc.gov>

To: <johnedwin_miller@xxx.com>
Subject: Re: interpretation of Section 121(b)(1)(B)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:59:06 -0400

There is no legislative history on section 121, so we have no interpretation of it from Congress. 
Taking the language of the clause literally, it would imply that further reproduction or 
distribution in a specialized format is permissible, as long as the copies bear that notice. 
Otherwise, there would be no reason to have that notice requirement. 

 That clause, however, is limited to reproduction and distribution. It does not include creation of 
a derivative work, which is what editing and reformatting may be considered. (End Letter) 
When the WIPO Sullivan study analyzes whether copies made in the USA Under provisions of Section 
121 can be exported the analysis of Ms. Sullivan is ‘PROBABLY’ 

(Sullivan study, WIPO Document 15_7):

Export to individuals -- Probably permitted but only for copies in the special formats permitted
under the exception

The law only states that the Section 121d2 qualified individual who receives the specialized format 
material directly from the AE must be a US citizen or resident as defined by the 1931 Pratt‐Smoot Act; it 
is nowhere specified the citizenship of the person who might receive the specialized format material as 
per Section 121b1B. 

The reason in the USA that persons who have received specialized format materials cannot ‘reproduce 
and distribute’ as per Section 121b1B is that they have signed agreements with the Trusted 
Intermediaries (AEs) that nullify the second case of copyright infringement as mentioned above and as 
defined by statute. Such agreements – which would be voided by the proposed WBU/Brazil treaty – can 
be considered as contrary to ‘Public Policy’ and there is ample precedent record right up to the US 
Supreme Court that no contract is enforceable if it abrogates rights or privileges as granted by (positive) 
statute. 

If you read the Membership Agreements of certain USA Authorized Entities you find this is not 
speculative but the case as of right now.  The proposed WBU/Brazil, et al Treaty in fact states  

ARTICLE 7.  RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTRACTS 

Any contractual provisions contrary to the exception provided in Article 4 shall be null and void. 

The WIPO ‘Garnett Report’ has stated that in some instances Membership agreements have “… gone
beyond these (statutory) requirements to ensure broad support for the project.” It is possible that such
measures would prove unenforceable if they in fact deny privileges to members as granted by the same
statute under which the specialized format copies are made in the first place. SCCR/14/5
p 51 

When asked, if the Section 121b1B notice does not mean as the US Copyright Office above has 
suggested, what it actually does mean and what is the utility in notifying the qualified recipient of this 
condition, I have never received a coherent explanation…  If it refers to further ‘reproduction and 
distribution’ by the AE itself, then what is the point of putting the notice in every specialized format 
material received by the qualified end user? 

In its December 2009, the US Delegation Statement to the 19th SCCR in Geneva referred to the 
limitations under the Chafee Amendment as being ‘carefully crafted’. If the intent of the drafters is that 
further reproduction and distribution, in a specialized format or otherwise, by the qualified recipient 
was to be prohibited, then I question how ‘carefully crafted’ is the 121b1B language… they could have 
easily just said so. 
When I asked via email persons at Office of Special Education (OSEP) and US Department of Education ‐‐ 
who award funding on behalf of the Chafee Amendment‐based K‐12 NIMAS program ‐‐ what is their 
interpretation of the section 121 b1B notice and their policy as regards AEs which receive DoEd funding, 
the response was that such AEs have the right to impose contractual conditions that are designed to 
prevent Infringement of Copyright. 

(Begin  comment from OSEP) Security measures. (The) requirement that an eligible user may not share 
accessible materials assigned to him or her is not unique…  Various security measures are employed by 
authorized users to help protect against copyright infringement.  The safeguards … to protect against copyright
infringement appear to be in line with other authorized entities. ‐‐ OSEP correspondence SEP 2009 (end comment) 

My response was:  

How can you institute procedures to protect against Copyright Infringement that which the US 
Copyright Act clearly says is NOT an infringement of Copyright?  

I am not a diplomat… All that interests me is what can be done today; not what may be accomplished by 
a Treaty that may be approved next week, next year or possibly never… Depending upon the complexity 
of the original material or textbook – as to page layout, punctuation, imbedded poetry or song a la 
Thomas Pynchon, etc. – it takes a good deal of effort to prepare a fully edited Braille text… The NIMAS 
Project Director wrote to me personally in 2007: 

(Quote) I absolutely agree with you that regardless of the degree of automation promoted by NIMAS files
or any other digital solution, that the keen and practiced oversight of a skilled Braille transcriber will still be
necessary. In fact, I’m hoping that the promise inherent in digital Braille production, that we can generate
more pre-edited Braille than ever before, will actually increase the demand for transcribers. (End quote) 

The NFB at its Dallas 2008 resolutions said: 

(Quote) WHEREAS, it is widely known that, despite the many advances in the capability of Braille‐    
translation software, intervention by a Braille transcriber knowledgeable in the rules set forth by the 
Braille Authority of North America is still required to ensure that the often complicated layout and the 
increasingly graphics‐intensive content of textbooks is rendered properly and can be readily understood
and navigated by the Braille reader; (End quote)

I note all this Braille transcription information because the same contractual agreements that prohibited
me from editing automated Braille translation files are the same contractual agreements that prohibit any
export of specialized format material across national boundary. It was Ms. Sullivan’s WIPO analysis that
in the USA such export by an individual is ‘probable’; so for many of you debating the international
aspects of the proposed treaty as in Walt Kelly’s “Pogo” cartoon “We have met the enemy and he is us.” 

I believe that many of the rights sought by the Treaty at least for some qualified materials may be 
accomplished using non‐mainstream interpretation of existing Copyright Law…and I would like to make 
my work available to qualified citizens of as many countries as possible whether by new Treaty or to the 
greatest extent possible under existing USA and UK Copyright Law.  

On such basis with my small 501c3 Braille ‘Authorized Entity’ I will, as mentioned above, proceed.