The following 2 entries are comments that were initially posted on DAISY.

org/Forums but were then

deleted by Dr. George Kerscher or one of his subordinates

Deleted item #1:

Re: WIPO Binding Legal Framework Needed: Speak Out

The DAISY for Planet March 2011 contained the above article. In their
response the DAISY Board said:

"The DAISY Consortium Board of Directors has made it clear that it

fully supports a binding legal framework to address the issue of cross
border exchange of accessible versions of copyrighted materials"

The article further stated: Only through a binding legal framework can
the book famine which affects people with print disabilities worldwide
be resolved in a sustainable and cost effective way. After two years
of negotiations we are no closer to a binding legal framework."
The article then stated that you should contact your nation's WIPO
representative or contact Mr. Chris Friend who leads the WBU Treaty
effort. I sent the following letter to Mr. Friend:

(begin letter) Hello Mr. Friend -- From the March 2011 Issue of Daisy Planet:
(quote) Only through a binding legal framework can the book famine
which affects people with print disabilities worldwide be resolved in
a sustainable and cost effective way. Your support for a binding legal
framework is needed. Please make your voice heard by contacting the
WIPO representatives for participating countries. (end quote)
This all reminds me -- as I have written on KEI -- of US President
Lincoln's 1861 appeal to the "Angels of Our Better Nature" ... You can
'make your voice heard' and mention the UN Convention on Disabilities
until you are blue in the face; Until people at the EU, or AAP, or
Jens Bemmel, or Olav Stokkmo, see some downside to not supporting a
binding agreement whether the WBU / Brazil effort or some other, they
will continue to stall and stall some more ... as they have just
promoted with their April 15 'General Assembly Decisions' Memo with
its proposed 3 to 5 year evaluation period as to whether any further
action is needed.

Maybe you do not take me and my efforts at all seriously and that is
just fine... but I have said since 2 years ago that existing 'chinks
in the armor' of existing copyright law have not been sufficiently
exploited by the Reading impaired community. And now given the
comments of KEI and the US copyright office that has been increasingly
the case.

Let those opposing your worthy efforts have to come up with a legal
argument as to why a US Section 121 authorized entity cannot export to
the developing world as per US Copyright Office and other opinions...
why not for a change make them defend their legal position... As the
Thai girls here say: Up To You.
Regards/ JEM (end of letter)

So if there any of you out there in DAISY-land in countries outside of

USA or UK who would be interested in receiving a fully edited Braille
version of some world class Nobel or Pulitzer prize winning literature
-- which you can play on your DAISY-player -- under the auspices of US
Copyright Law you can contact me at < authent121@hotmail.com > ... and
maybe we can start a grass-roots effort to end the book famine without
relying on a bunch of bureaucrats in Geneva whichever side of the
dilemma they may reside.

Deleted DAISY.org/Forums #2:

The Daisy.org Board has previously asked "please" that a binding copyright exception Treaty be passed
at WIPO SCCR sessions. This time their tactic is to ask "pretty please".

The Board has issued the following statement prior to WIPO SCCR 22nd Session (in part):

(quote) The DAISY Consortium Board of Directors wishes to state that it fully supports a binding legal
framework to address the issue of cross-border exchange of accessible versions of copyrighted
materials. Only through a binding legal framework can the book famine which affects people with print
disabilities worldwide be resolved in a sustainable and cost effective way.

We urge governments to instruct their delegations at WIPO to reach rapid agreement on the binding
legal framework needed to meet their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities.(end quote)

At this late stage of the game, if all the DAISY Board can do is to urge on the various government
delegations, that is tantamount to pushing the back-end of a wet piece of spaghetti... the various
delegations will support some variation of a binding copyright exceptions Treaty only when opposing
any such Treaty is contrary to their respective self-interests -- not just because of some nebulous
obligation or because "the right thing to do".

I have also sent directly to Dr. Kerscher the following to emails neither of which has received any
response. Letter #1:

Hello Dr. Kerscher -- That's OK -- if my posts on your Daisy.org forum are deleted I at least know that
you or someone else has read them.

A treaty proposal tabled at WIPO SCCR is meaningless unless it can be ratified by the various
delegations because they *want* to support such a treaty not because some observer organization tells
them it is their obligation under UN convention.

You might try pretending how you would address the issue as if Henry Kissinger was leading your
advocacy and not yourself, Chris Friend, and Dan Pescod.

Or as Nixon's presidential counsel allegedly put it: When you got 'em by the balls, their hearts and
minds will follow. Regards/ JEM

Letter #2:

Hello Dr. Kerscher -- After the Google Book settlement decision was announced by Judge Denny Chin
IP-Watch.org ran an article 23 March 2011 entitled

Google, Authors, Will Need To Rethink Digital

Book Settlement --
to which I posted a comment at

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/23/google-authors-will-need-to-
rethink-digital-book-settlement/#comment-3984679

The original Google Book Settlement to which Counselor Allan Adler of the AAP
and other publishers agreed contained the notice:

"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."

You and your cohorts seem to have in no way incorporated this development and
the published opinions of the US Copyright Office regarding export of Braille or
other specialized format materials into any of your positions regarding the
WBU/Brazil Treaty.

... which may be one of the reasons the EU felt comfortable in proposing a 3 to 5
years evaluation period before the possible consideration of of treaty issues.
Regards/ JEM