Skip Navigation LinksHome > News > WIPO Treaty Must Ensure TPMs do not block Access

WIPO Treaty Must Ensure TPMs do not block Access

It has taken years of hard work to get to the brink of concluding a workable treaty. It would be a shame at this late stage if we settled for something which did not do the job. We will not have another chance in our lifetimes to improve it!
Why the treaty must state that technological protection measures (“TPMs”) cannot prevent lawful access to / use of works under the treaty provisions
 
Simply, without such a provision, lawful and important use of the treaty provisions could be prevented simply by adding a “digital padlock” / TPM to a digital work. If there were no mention of TPM in the treaty, then the breaking of such a “padlock”, even if only specifically to use the treaty provisions in a legitimate fashion, could be deemed illegal.
 
Often, though not always, the application of technological protection measures or “TPM” to a digital version of a book can make that book inaccessible to blind or partially sighted people. It can do this by making it impossible to do such things as change file format, navigate a document with text-to-speech screen reading software, or provide descriptions of graphics that are an essential part of understanding a work.
 
WBU supports the wording along the lines of Article F Alternative A1 to achieve this objective. It reads:
 
“Alternative A
1.         Member States/Contracting Party should/shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C are not prevented from enjoying the exception in the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.”
 
However, we would like it to be made clear that such a clause applies also to the cross-border part of the treaty (Articles D and E). Otherwise the mere existence of a TPM on a work would mean that an authorised entity would fear removing / altering the TPM to send the work  to another country.
 
We would be willing to accept other simple text formulations in Article F that would achieve the same outcome.
 
We are not comfortable with the idea of deleting an article on TPM, even if that were done with the understanding that somewhere in the text and “agreed statement” on the matter would be appended to another article.
 
Finally, we are hearing it said that because some blind people’s organisations have used TPMs themselves, surely we don’t need to worry about the treaty text dealing with the matter. We don’t see the logic in this argument. Simply, if a “digital padlock” needs removing to legitimately use the treaty- whoever might have put that padlock in place- then the treaty should specifically ensure that can happen legally. 
​​