The recently released WIPO SCCR 22 Draft report contains the following starting on page 18 http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=175478 87.

The representative of Beneficent Technology, Inc. (Benetech) was a strong supporter of the WBU's advocacy for a global treaty to help people with print disabilities. Citing the Bookshare Library Project for the severely print disabled people as an example, he said that the project had over the last one year grown from serving 100,000 people to 140,000 people and its collection from 70,000 books to nearly 110,000 books in the United States and could therefore be replicated globally to remedy the global book famine given the right legal backing. Benetech attributed the rapid increase in collection to the extensive voluntary support from publisher-partners in the United States of America, Canada, the European Union and India... Bookshare states in its Individual Agreement Form: http://www.bookshare.org/assets/docs/Bookshare_Individual_A greement_2008.doc (from 1.) ... but I cannot distribute it to other people or organizations... (from 3.) Its important to not redistribute these Accessible Media to other individuals, regardless of whether or not they would qualify for Bookshare. I agree to use the Accessible Media I obtain from Bookshare solely for my personal use. (from 4.) . I acknowledge that violations of copyright law and the terms of this Agreement may subject me and other people committing such violations to civil and criminal liability, and that Bookshare will cooperate with investigations by copyright owners of such violations. (from 10.) This Agreement is governed by U.S. copyright law and its treaties with other countries protecting the interests of the copyright

owners, and by California contract and licensing laws since that is where the Bookshare service is based. ... and from its Publisher Agreement Form: http://www.bookshare.org/assets/docs/Publisher_Letter_of_Con sent.doc Works of Publisher that are copyrighted shall be made available only to members with qualifying print and reading disabilities, using the definition of blind or other persons with disabilities as set forth in section 17 U.S.C. 121 of the U.S. copyright law or similar laws in other jurisdictions, ... and only to members who have agreed to terms of use substantially the same as the terms currently included in the Member Agreements posted on the Bookshare website. The Works will be protected by Bookshare with the same or better digital rights management system as other copyrighted Works that are now accessible through Bookshare. Bookshare states on its website on 2 separate web pages that US Copyright Law Section 121(b)(1)(B) requires that all materials distributed under Chafee exemption: (Shall) bear a notice that any further reproduction or distribution in a format other than a specialized format is an infringement; The Bookshare.org Header language for copyrighted materials -- at least according to the Bookshare.org website as of 14 AUG 2011 -completely omits this required notice for accessible renditions of Copyrighted materials as distributed to their qualified Members, only saying that: Bookshare.org distributes this accessible media under restrictions set forth either in copyright law or in an agreement with the copyright owner

You are not allowed to redistribute content derived from this accessible media to anybody else, with one exception: we allow hardcopy Braille books prepared from Accessible Media to be provided to other blind people. http://www.bookshare.org/assets/docs/legalese-copyright.xml Both these agreements seem to suggest that US Copyright statute reads such that ANY further reproduction or distribution in ANY format by the Member recipient would be subject to Membership termination and possible civil and/or criminal penalties and that any such agreements are an embodiment of properly interpreted US Copyright Law. I submitted a query 28 MAY 2007 to the US Copyright Office regarding their interpretation of Section 121(b)(1)(B) to which they replied: From: "Copyright Information" <copyinfo@loc.gov> To: <jem@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. Given the language of that clause, how can the legal minds at Benetech / Bookshare tell persons that documents as provided under provisions of the Chafee Amendment or using that US Statute as the basis for agreements binding upon individuals or entities in other countries CANNOT be further reproduced and distributed even if in NOT 'other than a specialized format' as per Section 121 (b)(1)(B)?

The Benetech / Bookshare CEO previously replied to this same issue in 2010 on the WIPO VisionIP website by saying: Bookshare actually works with real copyright lawyers, including our own, as well as those from the Association of American Publishers and the copyright office, and works to implement the most favorable interpretation of existing law to advance our mission of serving as many people with disabilities as possible. Weve implemented the notice requirements (and agreements with our users) to meet the requirements of the U.S copyright exemption, based on extensive legal consultations. Weve crafted them to carry out our social mission without exposing our community to legal challenges. https://www3.wipo.int/forum/?p=36&cpage=1#comment-73 (See * below) The 'bear a notice' requirement is not for the benefit of employees of the originating Authorized Entity or possible employees of other Authorized Entities with whom the accessible reproduction might be shared; it is a notice to the qualifying beneficiary recipient as defined under 121(d)(2) as to what he/she can and cannot do upon receiving such copyrighted material without infringement of copyright. I note the following: http://www.theruleslawyers.com/the-superfluous-language-canon/ The Superfluous Language Canon Do not interpret a rule in such a way that makes some of the language inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant. (Supreme Court of the US) Cites: 1. Corley v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1558 (2009):

[a] statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant 2. D. Ginsberg & Sons v. Popkin, 52 S.Ct. 322 (1932): The construction contended for would violate the cardinal rule that, if possible, effect shall be given to every clause and part of a statute. 3. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 122 S.Ct. 441 (2001): It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant. So the above is US Supreme Court precedence to such interpretation. My 2007 contention to Bookshare.org, and that was the root cause of my USCO inquiry, was that if accessible documents are reproduced and distributed by an Authorized Entity under terms of the Chafee Amendment, that Authorized Entity cannot then pick-and-choose which parts of Section 121 that they like and which ones they can choose to ignore. My original contention was solely that the Bookshare.org member agreement could not prevent a Member from forwarding the copyrighted material received from Bookshare.org so that -- as a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber -- I might edit their Braille copies that were in dire need of manual editing. That right was granted by Statute. ... And that any such contract that is based upon a superfluous reading of 'undesirable' statute language is unenforceable. My current concern is that there in fact should be some form of binding International Treaty agreement at least for BRF ASCII Braille

as Braille-only has precedence in multiple WIPO Member country Copyright Law. If those who favor a Treaty along the lines of the WBU/Brazil 18_5 Proposal or even the current 22_15/16 Single-page Text, attempt to 'replicate' existing practices based on dubious legal interpretation, such an effort might prove easy-pickin's for those who would oppose any such Treaty. In referring to the US Section 121 Chafee Amendment the Founder and CEO of Benetech / Bookshare said the following in his WIPO SCCR 22 intervention: We think this exception has worked extraordinarily well in the U.S.: helping people with disabilities while not hurting, and almost certainly helping, authors and publishers. ... We would like to see a global norm comparable to the system that has worked so well in the U.S. extended to help all people with print disabilities in the world who need it. Thank you! http://benetech.blogspot.com/2011/06/our-wipo-statement-ontreaty-for-access.html If one is looking to expand globally given the 'right legal backing', then operating on the right-legal-backing in the USA is a good place to start. * Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain the Great and Powerful OZ has spoken! -- from the 1939 screenplay for The Wizard of OZ