Dear Mr. Falkvinge -- The following was sent to MP Mr.

Engstrom (who had posted comments re: WIPO SCCR 22) and was deemed worthy of neither a reply nor acknowledgement. I viewed your recent TED talk. I especially liked your line about not vilifying one's adversaries as that IMHO is happening all too often at WIPO SCCR negotiations by those who advocate for greater copyright freedoms. I also think -- short of changing law or international instrument -- the best approach is to use existing law in new or novel interpretation but this has been rejected by persons in the disability rights community. Regards/ JEM ***** Dear Sir -- I am the Director of a (very) small US 501c3 Non Profit (NGO) and a US Library of Congress Certified Braille Transcriber. I recently had an email conversation with Mr. Stephen Davis of the RNIB / President of the DAISY Consortium. He basically said -- in a memo for which claims confidentiality -- that the large national organizations for the blind and other print related disabilities would be reticent to employ a tactic of using the export/import provisions of existing copyright exceptions of major WIPO Member countries in a manner which might provoke a lawsuit from the various intellectual property interests. I responded with the following: 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. I particularly note your mention of China whose 2001 copyright law allows for unrestricted reproduction in Braille at Section4 Article 22(12) 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. I concluded my response with the following:

I believe you will get your Treaty when the worldwide publishing industry and those WIPO Member delegations who would oppose such a Treaty believe that a binding legal instrument is the least of several otherwise disagreeable outcomes and not before -- it is just the Realpolitik in me. I wrote late last year on former EU MP David Hammerstein's TACDIP.org website: Try-it-and-see-if-you-get-sued is how things often work in the legal arena and takes someone or some organization willing to put themselves at-risk to establish a test case or precedent and thereby force those who might oppose a binding Treaty to offer some clear rationale for its opposition and not just stall, stall, and stall some more. http://tacd-ip.org/archives/518#comments ... and more recently on the latest EU 'grilling' of Commissioner M. Barnier at: http://tacd-ip.org/archives/581#comments Finally, I wrote on the DAISY Consortium Forum: At what point does the collective leadership of the DAISY Consortium, the World Blind Union, and other representatives of the world's print disabled population become accountable for the current state-of-affairs instead of just blaming those who would oppose any such print disability treaty or legal instrument for their willful disregard of non-binding declarations human rights? So, I for one actually have and am further willing to put myself at risk that much of what is sought in a binding legal copyright exception instrument -- which may never come to pass -- can be achieved or a least better negotiated by using exiting legislation. Thank you. / JEM www.121authent.wordpress.com