Position Paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition

Abstract

Am 28. Juni 2013 einigte sich die Staatengemeinschaft auf einer diplomatischen Konferenz der WIPO in Marrakesch auf einen Vertrag zur Einführung einer zwingenden urheberrechtlichen Schranke zugunsten von Blinden, Sehbehinderten und Menschen mit Leseschwäche. 2 Hintergrund für die Verhandlungen über diesen internationalen Vertrag war in erster Linie, dass nach Schätzungen von Blindenorganisationen den weltweit etwa 285 Millionen blinden und sehbehinderten Menschen 1 nur etwa 7 Prozent aller je erschienenen Bücher in einem barrierefreien Format zugänglich sind. 2 In Ent-

The ratification and implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty for visually impaired persons in the Arab Gulf States

“…In addition, Article 7 of the Treaty provides that a TPM, such as a copy or access control, cannot prevent beneficiary persons from enjoying the exceptions provided under the Treaty, even when a country prohibits the circumvention of TPMs in its copyright legislation (Attorney‐General's Department (AGD), ; EIFL, ; Helfer et al, , pp. 62–67; Hilty et al, , p. 9; Sganga, , p. 100; Wiele, , p. 50). Article 9 of the Treaty encourages contracting parties to share information, practices and policies in relation to authorized entities (including information related to the cross‐border exchange of accessible format copies) with interested parties and members of the public as appropriate .…”

“…This is because it allows blind and the print disabled to access books and other published works (Helfer et al, , p. 91; Fruchterman, ; MBIE, , p. 25) by lowering the transaction costs that are associated with the making and supplying of copies of copyrighted works for VIPs for whom visual perception of works is impossible or extremely difficult (Trimble, , p. 772). The Treaty intends to mitigate the global problem of the “book famine” for blind and VIPs worldwide, and at the same time tries to reduce copyright piracy (CDLP; Helfer et al, , p. xxi; Hilty et al, ; Jarvis, ; Scheinwald, ; WBU, ; Zemer & Gaon, , p. 848). The adoption of the Treaty also ends a troubled historical period of international copyright relations that lasted for more than a decade (Fiscor, ; LaBarre, ).…”

“…The Treaty intends to prevent copyright law from further constituting an insurmountable obstacle to the production and dissemination of works in accessible formats (Conway, ; p. 41; Hilty et al, ). It specifically addresses the needs of visually impaired communities by discussing, for the first‐time copyright, human rights and disability together in a meaningful way (Brown & Waelde, , pp.…”

Untangling the hyperlinking web: In search of the online right of communication to the public

“…The new right would apply inter alia to online aggregators of news that provide links to the publishers’ contents or that use snippets of said content. The provision, sometimes labeled as a “link tax” or “Google tax,” has been criticized inter alia for lacking economic justification, distorting competition, being detrimental to media pluralism, and for its otiose nature (Bently, Kretschmer, Dudenbostel, Calatrava Moreno, & Radauer, ; European Copyright Society, ; Hilty & Moscon, ; Peukert, ).…”

“…It is not clear how these obligations—labeled by critics as requiring “mandatory upload filtering” by platforms—are consistent with the aforementioned hosting safe harbor and prohibition on general monitoring, as well with fundamental rights. Indeed, many scholars and other stakeholders argue they are not, as do at least two Committees in the European Parliament reviewing the legislation (Angelopoulos, ; Hilty & Moscon, ; Senftleben et al, ) . Furthermore, as this article shows, the contention that these platforms directly communicate works to the public is dubious as a matter of law and undesirable as a matter of policy.…”