Ratifying Is Just the Beginning: Solutions to Relieve the Legal Dilemmas between the Marrakesh Treaty and the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020

Abstract： China has ratified the Marrakesh Treaty， and the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 has come intoforce. This means that China is not only aiming to solve the \"book shortage\" for dyslexics but is also undertaking theheavy responsibility of producing and disseminating accessible format copies globally. However， in the final law thathas come into effect， there are only two articles related to dyslexics， which need to be explained to better adapt the Mar?rakesh Treaty. At present， there is no more practice in China， and these problems that need to be solved are all legal di?lemmas， mainly on two levels. One is the clarification of several legal definitions and how to relate them to the Mar?rakesh Treaty， including \"dyslexics\" and a \"barrier-free way\". The other is how to choose definitions and principleclauses that are not stipulated in the existing legislation and how to transplant those of the Marrakesh Treaty and learnfrom other foreign experiences， including phrases such as \"authorized entities\"， \"exceptions to technical measures\"，\"commercial availability\"， \"copyright royalty\"， and \"cross-border exchange\". In the future， in order to maximize the in?terests of dyslexics and copyright owners， the best solution would be to insert the rules of \"commercial availability\" and\"copyright royalty\" on the basis of filling in the blank clauses. In addition， it will be necessary to expand the definitionof \"dyslexics\" and a \"barrier-free way\"， and to further control international cooperation regarding \"cross-border ex?change\".

KeywordsKeywords： Chinese Copyright Law; the Marrakesh Treaty; dyslexics; amendment; barrier-free way

CLC： D 923 DC： A Article：2096?9783（2023）04?0137?12

The legal light of the integration of private rights and human rights is not only the light of wisdom to protect the in?terests of knowledge creators and promote the growth of spiritual wealth， but also the rational light to maintain the publicinterests and promote the dissemination of knowledge and technology.

——Wu Handong[1]

Reading books is the principal means by which people are educated and participate in cultural life. However， asignificant number of people are unable to read books in the usual way due to disabilities， acquired illnesses， or acci?dents. These groups include people who are blind and people who have physical and cognitive disabilities， including vi?sual， tactile， or other pathological conditions[2]. According to the first World Vision Report， released by the WorldHealth Organization （WHO） in 2019， about 2.2 billion people worldwide are visually impaired， including the blind①.According to a report from the World Blind Union （WBU）， less than 10% of all published materials can be read byblind or low-vision people②. Clearly， we are faced with the dilemma of a lack of accessible formats， and governmentsshould guarantee that people who are blind， visually impaired， or otherwise print-disabled③ have as much right to en?joy accessible format copies of works as others.

Driven by this impending need， the World Intellectual Property Organization （WIPO）-administered MarrakeshTreaty was signed in 2013 and took effect in 2016④. The Marrakesh Treaty is supported by non-governmental organiza?tions， such as the WBU， requiring the WIPO to promote the adoption of a new treaty based on copyright restrictionsand exceptions for visually impaired people， among others. The purpose of the Marrakesh Treaty is to enable personswho are visually impaired or print-disabled to have full and equal access to copyrighted works， information， and com?munication⑤. This Treaty is in fact the result of balancing the special needs interests of developing countries with thoseof developed countries， as the majority of visually impaired people live in developing countries， particularly in the leastdeveloped countries.

On October 23， 2021， the Standing Committee of the 13th Chinese National People's Congress issued the approv?al of the Marrakesh Treaty， meaning that the Treaty is to come into force for China three months after the ratification isdeposited⑥. As an early sign of things to come， for the Marrakesh Treaty in 2013， the Chinese delegation not only ac?tively participated in the negotiations but also made important contributions with other developing countries to theadoption of some provisions⑦. However， the Marrakesh Treaty sets out more detailed legislative requirements for theParties， who must stipulate copyright restrictions and exceptions in order to facilitate access to the \"beneficiary per?sons\". China is aware that there are many mismatched provisions between the Copyright Law of the People's Republicof China （the Chinese Copyright Law） and the Marrakesh Treaty⑧; thus， China drafted the Chinese Copyright Law DraftAmendment in 2012 （the Draft Amendment 2012）⑨， the second after the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment in 2010（the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2010）， and then started the process of revising the Chinese Copyright Law forthe third time. China did not join the Treaty as a state party， wanting to amend the terms in order to transform the Mar?rakesh Treaty through the third amendment of the Chinese Copyright Law.

On November 11， 2020， the final revision of the Copyright Law was adopted at the 23rd meeting of the StandingCommittee of the 13th National People's Congress and came into force on June 1， 2021⑩. Since then， China's ten-yearamendment of the Copyright Law has finally borne fruit. To enable dyslexics to obtain accessible format copies of worksand to ensure they have the same rights as those stipulated in the Marrakesh Treaty， the Chinese Copyright LawAmendment 2020 not only stipulated the terms of \"fair use to benefit dyslexics\"， but it also contained the dischargescope for the non-profit use of accessible formats to avoid technical issues. The original intention of this modificationwas to meet the requirements of universal and personalized human rights and meet the needs of dyslexics， effectivelyprotecting their rights and interests.

Although China considered the specific provisions of the Copyright Law on dyslexics for the ratification of the Mar?rakesh Treaty， the Copyright Law Amendment 2020 does not provide detailed and complete provisions for dyslexics.However， it is clear under the Chinese Copyright Law system， such as in the Regulations for the Implementation of theCopyright Law. Although the Copyright Law Amendment 2020 has made efforts to make macro provisions on the ratifi?cation of the Marrakesh Treaty， it still requires more detailed and complete provisions to be better implemented， whichis exactly the goal of this paper. The first part of this paper discusses the provisions related to dyslexics in the thirdamendment of the Chinese Copyright Law; the second part focuses on the existing provisions in the Chinese CopyrightLaw Amendment 2020; and the final part aims to refine the feasibility suggestions for the copyright system in China.

1 Continuous Consideration： Efforts to Ratify the Marrakesh Treaty

It has been 30 years since the official implementation of the Chinese Copyright Law in 1990， with the third and fi?nal amendment coming in 2020. In fact， the Chinese Copyright Law regulated \"fair use\" for the blind by providingBraille until the promulgation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China Draft Amendment （Draft Amend?ment 2020） on April 30， 2020. With the rapid development and widespread use of digital and network technology andthe target to achieve international convention docking， the Draft Amendment 2020 was revised with regard to two as?pects of \"fair use\"： one was that it expanded the scope of the \"accessible format copy\" from Braille to include formatsthat can be understood by dyslexics in a special way that they can perceive; the other was that the drafters expanded thebeneficiaries from blind persons to include those with dyslexics. At the same time， the exceptions regarding technicalmeasures were also modified accordingly.

However， since the signing of the Marrakesh Treaty in 2013， the Chinese academic community has begun to focuson researching the copyright and human rights of \"beneficiary persons\"， who are called \"visually impaired\" or \"dys?lexics\" in China. Subsequently， some scholars began to conduct research from the perspective of libraries and pub?lishing， aiming to enable libraries to become a bridge to barrier-free access and cross-border exchange for dyslexics[3] .Others discussed the issues resulting from Chinese Copyright Law connecting with the Marrakesh Treaty from the per?spective of \"the foreign experience\"[4] ， the development of artificial intelligence （AI）[5] and virtual reality （VR）[6] ， and soon. To sum up， the major issues resulting from the research are as follows：

（1）whether it is necessary for the Chinese Copyright Law to intersect with the Marrakesh Treaty， modifying therelevant contents of the Copyright Law;

（2）how to amend the Chinese Copyright Law in order for it to be ratified. This mainly includes the identificationof beneficiaries， authorized entities， and the accessibility format; the scope of the convertible works; whether to add theclauses of \"commercial availability\"; and the technical measures exceptions in the law system in China.

With the increasing number of countries joining the Marrakesh Treaty， the research results regarding overseas ex?periences were substantial. Of course， the depth and width of Chinese research into aspects of the Marrakesh Treatyand Chinese systemic Copyright Law were also revealed. Even more beneficially， these have also played a landmarkrole in the third revised Chinese Copyright Law. In 2020， the Chinese Copyright Law was amended， and it has been re?vised two times with participation from all sectors of society. On August 8， 2020， the DraftⅡ Amendment 2020 was re?leased. In the DraftⅡ Amendment 2020， the clauses related to dyslexia are further modified. In Article 24（12） and Ar?ticle 50（2）， Chinese drafters deleted the word \"special\" due to controversy.

When the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 was released on November 11， 2021， the clause had beenamended once again with regard to the rule of \"fair use\" and \"the exception of the technical measures\" for dyslexics.The final law simply replaces \"a way through which they can perceive\" with \"a barrier-free way through which theycan perceive\". The insertion of the definition of \"a barrier-free way\" is the result of keeping pace with the \"accessibleformat\" in the Marrakesh Treaty.

The third amendment of the Chinese Copyright Law was completed after 10 years， and the draft was released tothe public six times up to November 11， 2021. In the past ten years， the Copyright Law system in China has not only ex?perienced the Marrakesh Treaty entering into force in 2016， but has also witnessed the technological progress and itera?tions that have brought benefits to dyslexics. As a result of the constant consideration of the legislative content， the le?gal terms \"dyslexics\" and \"barrier-free way\" were chosen.

However， we should still be aware that the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 does not contain more de?tailed， relevant content. In other words， Chinese lawmakers should make more detailed provisions to combat the prob?lems and improve the Copyright Law system.

2 Just the Beginning： Problems in the Implementation of the MarrakeshTreatyAlthough China is not on the official list of signatories to the Marrakesh Treaty， it still needs to address the issuesunderlying the existing copyright regime if it is to reach more dyslexics through the Treaty and the Copyright Law sys?tem. These issues seem to be commonplace， but the more detailed issues are still controversial， and there are no uni?fied legal provisions in China at present. These issues are put forward and summarized here.

2.1 How to Explicit \"Dyslexics\"？

How to determine the relationship between \"dyslexics\" and \"beneficiary persons\" is a hot topic[7]. From the per?spective of foreign translation， based on the provisions of the Treaty on \"beneficiary persons\". \"dyslexics\" is the onlyenumerated type in the category. Therefore， how to define the scope of dyslexic people in the Chinese Copyright LawAmendment 2020 is the primary problem to be solved.In addition， there are three problems to carefully consider：

（1）Whether the term \"dyslexics\" includes groups who cannot achieve access to audio and visual works due tohearing issues should also be clear;

（2）How to stipulate the agent of dyslexia. The Treaty stipulates that the caregivers （or caretakers） using \"a barri?er-free way through which they can perceive\" on behalf of the \"beneficiary persons\" are also the subject of the copy?right exceptions. China does not stipulate the terms of caregivers （or caretakers） except to state that Civil Law can beused to infer the exemption of guardians' user behavior. However， if the persons who help dyslexics use \"a barrier-freeway through which they can perceive\" are not guardians， then the clause will cause controversy in practice;

（3）The question of how \"dyslexics\" are identified. For example， some groups of dyslexics， due to age， should beidentified in this category.

2.2 What Is the Relationship between \"A Barrier-Free Way through Which They Can Perceive\" and\"Accessible Format Copies\"？

The term \"accessible format copies\" is specifically interpreted as meaning \"a copy of the work\" and \"used exclu?sively by beneficiary persons\"， while it is specified as \"a barrier-free way\" and \"be perceived\" in the Chinese Copy?right Law Amendment 2020. It is of great significance to determine the differences between the legal terms in the Trea?ty and the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020. Early on， the term \"dyslexics\" was limited to the blind in China，so touching Braille was only perceived by the blind， and the ones framed in the Treaty could use accessible format cop?ies of works. However， now， dyslexics are not only blind， and the term \"dyslexics\" means an expansion of the subjectscope. Furthermore， in order to solve the difficulties of Braille production and poor reading experiences， in addition toproviding large posters for some non-blind people with dyslexia， audiobooks are also provided by Daisy and other soft?ware providers， as are barrier-free movies， VR， and other ways to access works. Judging from the actual situation inChina， the number of blind people cannot be compared with other groups of dyslexics[8]. Therefore， there may be moredemand for barrier-free films and VR， which are more feasible and accommodating.

Generally， the Marrakesh Treaty recognizes that the different alternative formats should take into considerationthe accessibility needs of the beneficiaries. However， because the Treaty does not specify the scope of these alternativeformats， \"a barrier-free way\" still has the risk of violating the requirements of \"accessible format copies\".

Therefore， there are two pressing issues to address： （1） to interpret the constituent elements of \"a barrier-freeway\"; and （2） to clarify whether the accessible format \"copies\" could apply \"a barrier-free way\".

2.3 What Is the Scope of the \"Works\"？

The elements of \"works\" under the Treaty include the following： （1） they must be published for society; （2） theyfall under the category of \"literary and artistic works\" protected by the Bern Convention. However， in our law， \"works\"simply means \"which have been published\"， with no special instructions. As a matter of fact， the \"works\" of the Chi?nese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 have more categories （the atypical works） than ever before with the developmentof digital technology， such as \"images of sports events live TV broadcast\"， \"GIF animations\"[9]， \"Music Fountain\"，and so on. Therefore， even if there are no exceptions， China should also explain whether the \"work\" is a work under theBern Convention or falls under the category of \"domestic work\".

2.4 How to Delimit the Boundary between \"Non-for-Profit Purposes\" and \"Authorized Entities\"？

In the Marrakesh Treaty， \"authorized entities\" should have four characteristics： （1） they are authorized （or recog?nized） by governments， including with government-supported finance; （2） they are government institutions or non-prof?it organizations， excluding profit entities; （3） they must provide services on a non-profit basis; and （4） they provide onlyeducation， instructional training， adaptive reading， or information access. However， there is no related \"authorized en?tity\" in the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020. If a relevant term has to be found， the \"providers\" who adapttechnical measures for dyslexics for \"not-for-profit purposes\" may be the closest thing to authorized entities.This means that there are at least three levels between the \"providers\" and the \"authorized entities\"： （1） the \"pro?viders\" can provide \"barrier-free\" work to dyslexics without limitation by the four characteristics; （2） individuals canalso be a \"provider\"， but individuals are substantially different from entities; and （3） whether they are authorized （orrecognized） by governments. Based on the above three differences， it is clear that the term \"authorized entity\" is obvi?ously narrower than the term \"provider\". In a nutshell， at least three issues regarding \"authorized entity\" and \"provid?er\" need to be solved here： （1） the definition; （2） the characteristics; and （3） the relationship and the application.

2.5 Does the Legislation Clarify the \"Cross-Border Exchange\"？

In the Marrakesh Treaty， Articles 5， 6， 7， and 9 mainly target the subjects， conditions， and mandatory import tech?nical measures， as well as the cooperation principles of \"cross-border exchange\". Currently， the provision of \"crossborderexchange\" is a vacuum in the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020. In 2019， in China， there were 17.5 mil?lion dyslexics， accounting for one-fifth of the total number of blind people in the world. However， the number of Braillebooks for the blind in libraries is only 30，948， and the number of audiobooks is only 13，000， which is only one-third ofthose in the National Congress Library of Japan. If China builds a \"cross-border exchange\" system， it means that Chinacould make educational books accessible with the help of the Accessible Books Consortium （ABC）. In order to ensurethe achievement of knowledge sharing and convenient international cooperation for dyslexics， China still needs to con?sider whether to apply the relevant provisions of the Treaty directly or to transform them into a more explicit \"crossborderexchange\" mechanism clause through domestic law.

2.6 Is It Necessary to Insert the \"Commercial Availability\" Clause？

\"Commercial availability\" means that if a work already has a format suitable for visual dyslexics in the normal cul?tural market， the application of the right of access for dyslexics will be excluded. In the Marrakesh Treaty， it states that\"A Contracting Party may confine limitations or exceptions under this Article to works which， in the particular accessi?ble format， cannot be obtained commercially under reasonable terms for beneficiary persons in that market\". Thisclause was probably drawn up out of respect for the countries that have stipulated commercial availability clauses. Forexample， in Australian Copyright Law and Japanese Copyright Law， if the copyright owner has provided dyslexicswith a suitable format of the work （only audiobooks in Japan） in a reasonable way， others have no right to make fair useof it. In fact， these regulations provide the possibility for copyright owners to take the initiative to make profits， thus pro?viding potential knowledge acquisition space in the cultural market for dyslexics.

There is also debate in China over whether to transfer the concept of \"commercial availability\"， and both sideshave valid arguments. The supporters believe that it could not only help to avoid the waste of resources caused by re?peated production， but it could also encourage copyright owners to take the initiative to provide barrier-free format ver?sions of their works for the cultural market. The opponents believe that it will increase the economic burden for dyslex?ics to acquire knowledge， as they are vulnerable to discrimination in society due to their disability， so they have feweropportunities to gain employment and education than most people[10]. Furthermore， some Chinese scholars think thatChina inserted the clause of \"commercial availability\" in Article 50（2）， which stipulates that \"published works that can?not be obtained through normal channels\" can be regarded as having \"commercial availability\". However， the problemis that this clause was designed as an exception to technical measures， not simply for dyslexics to obtain a barrier-freeformat.

2.7 Should the Copyright Owners Be Provided Copyright Royalty？

The Marrakesh Treaty does not mention the copyright compensation system， but it allows States to establish a ben?efit compensation mechanism for copyright owners in domestic legislation. On September 13， 2017， the EuropeanUnion published a Directive"to implement the Marrakesh Treaty. The Marrakesh Directive gives Member States theoption to provide a compensation scheme for any harm caused to rightsholders from the use of the exception by autho?rized entities[11]. Thus， the UK Government set out to establish whether a compensation scheme would be warranted andthen identified three potential policy choices for compensation： （1） no compensation scheme; （2） compensation via col?lective licensing; and （3） compensation via direct payment. The UK Government determined that any such schemewould need to be justified in light of robust evidence of economic harm to rightsholders and that consideration shouldbe given to the costs of administering a compensation scheme. Of course， the potential issues that were identifiedwere how to establish that proof of damage and harm was incurred by the rightsholders， and how to establish the levelof compensation. At present， the UK has not made clear regulations with regard to a compensation scheme.

It is believed that the fair use of works should be limited to basic cultural needs to meet the reading needs of dys?lexics for basic education， science， and technology， which are mainly reflected in textbooks or professional academicbooks， while general public books， such as magazines and literary works， should remunerate copyright owners[12]. Gen?erally， \"commercial accessibility\" could protect the interests of copyright owners， but the system trace regarding \"com?mercial accessibility\" needs to be analyzed to determine whether it can achieve the same benefits， especially in China.

Admittedly， there are some problems with the exceptions to the technical measures clause in the current Copy?right Law. However， if the above-mentioned problems are solved， I believe that the problems regarding the exceptionsto technical measures may also be resolved; therefore， I will not enumerate them in detail here. Nevertheless， the Chi?nese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 has recently come into effect， and there is still a long way to go before the Mar?rakesh Treaty can be refined and transplanted into domestic law. The above-mentioned issues are all important issuesthat need to be clarified urgently in Copyright Law. Moreover， related issues may also be highlighted in practice andwill be left for follow-up research.

3 More Can Be Done： Feasibility Measures for Chinese Copyright Law Sys?tem to Ease the Difficulties

It has been eight years since the Marrakesh Treaty was established and ratified in China， and China paid greatattention to the Treaty when revising the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2010. Generally speaking， compared withother international copyright conventions， the Marrakesh Treaty has a more global public welfare focus. Although theChinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 has only a few mentions of dyslexics， it also reflects that China has great con?cern for dyslexics. As far as China's ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty is concerned， it has the significance of interna?tionalization， modernization， and systematization to keep pace with the times and conform to international trends. Atthe international level， it means that China's implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabili?ties （CRPD） has improved and that China's international image has been further enhanced. At the domestic level， itmeans that China's remarkable achievements in the development of causes for the disabled will be highlighted， and itwill have far-reaching significance for the spiritual and cultural life， education level， and cultural knowledge of dyslex?ic people.

In view of this， China does not underestimate the complexity of the domestic law transformation and the applica?tion of the Marrakesh Treaty. Furthermore， as a medium level of Copyright Law， the Chinese Copyright Law Amend?ment 2020 has inevitably been put into practice. The Chinese Legislative Council intends to make up for the existinglegal gaps and solve the above-mentioned key， difficult problems. Therefore， based on the disparate but meaningfuland feasible suggestions provided by the existing research， this paper also takes a more systematic approach to improv?ing the Chinese Copyright Law system.

3.1 Enact the \"Regulation for the Implementation of Dyslexics\"

From among the numerous Member States of the Marrakesh Treaty， almost all of them have essentially systemati?cally absorbed and converted the Treaty by amending their Copyright Laws or Acts. In fact， some Member States havemade more legislative responses to the Treaty than changes to Copyright Laws. Taking Japan as an example， at the leg?islative level， they not only promote the dissemination of barrier-free formats with the amendment of Japanese Copy?right Law but have also drafted special Acts， namely the Act on Promotion of Improvement of Reading Environment forVisually Impaired Persons[13] and the basic plan outline of the Act on Promotion of Improvement of Reading Environ?ment for Visually Impaired Persons （Reading Barrier-Free Act）[14]， supporting Japanese Copyright Law， Japanese Edu?cation Law for the Disabled， and other laws. Similarly， the European Union （EU） passed the EU Accessibility Act onApril 9， 2019 and required the EU Member States to convert it into domestic law by June 28， 2022[15]. The main con?tent of the EU Accessibility Act is to unify the legislative provisions between Member States， remove barriers to the cir?culation of accessible products and services between Member States， and ensure the accessibility of accessible informa?tion[16].

Although the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law may be amended more explicitly and fault?lessly in the future for dyslexics， it is difficult to make a special chapter for dyslexics from the main chapters of the Reg?ulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law. This is actually akin to a drop in the ocean for the systematic con?struction of dyslexic legislation， which would be difficult to draft to effectively cover all. Therefore， China should pro?mote the enactment of a Regulation for the Implementation of Dyslexics， and only in this way could the future develop?ment of dyslexics be effective[17].

3.2 Clarify the Scope of \"Works\"， \"Dyslexics\"， and \"A Barrier-Free Way through Which They Can Per?ceive\"

At any rate， a concept is simply a tool of human thought， but in the history of concept applications and change， theone-to-one mapping between \"name\" and \"reality\" is often not fixed， particularly as the same substance is often ex?pressed with different terms in different periods[18].

The \"works\"， can be delivered in a barrier-free way， and how to clarify the types of works should be put in thecontext of the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020. Although the scope of available works in the Marrakesh Trea?ty is defined in the category of published works under the Bern Convention， the legislation still varies for the MemberStates. The whole view of the Copyright Law system and the purpose to promote the prosperity of the socialist spiritualculture can be seen in the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020， which inserted the addition of legal types ofworks and an expansionary clause. While expanding the scope of available works will help to expand culture andknowledge sharing， the scope of the work should be protected by the Chinese Copyright Law Amendment 2020 becauseof the disharmony between technological development and international needs in the Bern Convention.

As for the term \"dyslexics\"， the definition should be reviewed by the Marrakesh Treaty and the Chinese CopyrightLaw Amendment 2020's legislative logic. Logically， \"dyslexics\" can include people who are blind， so the term \"dyslex?ics\" in China obviously has a different meaning to people with a \"reading disability\" described in the Marrakesh Trea?ty. Therefore， the category of \"dyslexics\" should be clarified.

First， \"dyslexics\" should include \"beneficiary persons\". This means that \"dyslexics\" shall be persons who areblind， or have a visual， perceptual， or physical disability. Second， it is necessary to refer to the reality of dyslexia andoverseas legislative practice. In Australia， \"person with a disability\" means someone who has difficulty hearing， view?ing， reading， comprehending， or a combination of these. In Japan， \"visually disabled people， etc.\" refers to people whoare unable to see or understand books （including magazines， newspapers， and other publications） due to other disabili?ties， such as visual disability， developmental disability， or limb limitations. Among them， \"dyslexics\" also refers to per?sons who have an intellectual or hearing disability or multiple disabilities so as he （or she） cannot read or understandthe works. To sum up， \"dyslexics\" means persons who have difficulty comprehending （intellectual） and （or） have a phys?ical disability regarding reading， hearing， viewing， or touching copyright works compared with typical persons.

Besides the definition， the standards of \"dyslexics\" should be determined， including （1） those without exhaustivemedical appraisal; （2） classifying \"dyslexics\" （including different types of visual， auditory， cognitive， and intellectualdisabilities， and physical disabilities and what these disabilities are） to correspond to barrier-free access to differentworks; （3） for an item （2）， standards can be determined by the type of SCCR/38/3[19] released by the WIPO; （4） the iden?tification organization can be centered on the China Association of the Blind and further increased depending on theauthorized situation.

The scope of the \"barrier-free way through which they can perceive\" is actually what kind of work \"dyslexics\"take to obtain the works. Therefore， solving the scope of the \"barrier-free way\" needs to start with the copyright rightsexempted by \"dyslexics\". In the Marrakesh Treaty， the rights are also limited by the Copying Act， but in different Mem?ber States， the legal Act has already gone beyond it. For example， in Japan， reproductions， adaptations， distributions，and communications were prescribed for the public. Developed countries， such as the United States， similarly pre?scribe reproductions， adaptations， distributions， and public performances. From the perspective of the Chinese Copy?right Law Amendment 2020， a \"barrier-free way\" actually gives dyslexics all kinds of \"works\"， except the personalrights to their works.

3.3 Identify the \"Authorized Entities\" and Refine the \"Cross-Border Exchange\" Mechanism

According to the existing types of \"authorized entities\" internationally and the perspective of balanced interestsand reality， dyslexics and individuals have too many difficulties with regard to technology and money to be \"authorizedentities\". The scope of \"authorized entities\" can exclude dyslexics and individuals with better choices; that is， the ele?ments of an \"authorized entity\" may include the following[20] ： （1） not limited to non-profit organizations （excluding indi?viduals or dyslexics themselves）， but can be for non-profit; （2） need to be approved and publicized by the relevant de?partments of the state council or the provincial government; and （3） undertake the obligation to control the circulationof barrier-free ways， such as recording and checking the information of dyslexics and caretakers （or caregivers） regular?ly.

The \"cross-border exchange\" mechanism can be limited and stipulated as follows： （1） for the associations of theblind， disabled federations， libraries， national libraries for the blind， and libraries of provincial， municipal， and districtregions as important authorized entities; （2） apply to the state council at or above the state council and submit it for therecord. At the same time， provide it through the channels designated by the state council; （3） apply to the higher govern?ment level below the provincial level and submit it for the record. At the same time， provide it through the channelsdesignated by the state council; （4） \"cross-border exchange\" with the Association of the Blind， the Disabled Federa?tion， the Library for the Blind， and the National Library as the center， and radiate the text of \"cross-border exchange\"to libraries and associations below the provincial level; （5） if dyslexics and caretakers （or caregivers） cannot apply for a\"barrier-free way\" in a timely manner， based on the requirements to avoid technical measures， \"cross-border ex?change\" can be used as the exemption subject.

3.4 Weighing in on \"Commercial Availability\" and \"Copyright Royalty\"

Both \"commercial availability\" and \"copyright royalty\" are rules set for the benefit of copyright owners， but thereis a fundamental difference at their core. Therefore， both of them will be regulated by Chinese Copyright Law in the fu?ture， and there will be no conflict.

\"Commercial availability\" is not necessary for the Treaty， and throughout foreign legislation， Canada， the UnitedStates， and other developed countries have clearly stipulated \"commercial availability\". However， the UK intends to de?lete \"commercial availability\" in order to facilitate \"dyslexics\" obtaining work. Certainly， Copyright Law is a balancebetween private rights and the public interest. Simply being in the public interest and neglecting personal interests willlead to the impairment of the overall cultural welfare of society in the long term and its development. As some scholarshave said， \"Profitability is the driving force of market development， and it is not as fast and economical as the profitmakingmechanism to fully rely on public welfare\"[21]. Based on this， China should insert \"commercial availability\" andcan draw lessons from Japan's \"legal deposit\" standards for judgment.

Compared with \"commercial availability\"， \"copyright royalty\" is actually compensation for the copyright owner.As mentioned above， only the UK refers to the compensation of copyright owners in its legislation and policy. \"The lifeof law doesn't lie in logic but in experience\". This means that the law should be made on the basis of realistic situa?tions in society. Admittedly， this view should not be simply defined as free or paid but should be treated differently ac?cording to the type of work. A more reasonable plan is the production of teaching materials and professional books with?in the scope of educational purposes， especially barrier-free works that help dyslexics develop their vocational skills，which should not have to pay copyright owners， while other types of works should. This is a plausible view， but thereare problems. In China， educational purposes may require statutory licenses. There is no need to worry about the costincrease of barrier-free ways due to copyright royalties. First， copyright royalties can be controlled to a certain stan?dard. Second， copyright royalties can be uniformly distributed via a provided platform and subsidized by the state ac?cordingly. Last but not least， the number of barrier-free ways that are provided could be controlled， so the total feeswould not be too high.

However， it needs to be made clear that a two-way principle should be adopted for copyright royalties： （1） thecopyright royalty system does not apply to the copyright owners with consideration paid by the authorized entity; （2） theroyalty should be paid in advance through collective copyright management; （3） the prior payment method should be forcompensation rather than exemption; （4） copyright royalties are for the use of dyslexics and their caretakers （or caregiv?ers） and authorized entities; （5） the international cooperation mechanism based on international royalties should pro?mote the \"cross-border exchange\" between countries with a strong copyright protection level.

4 ConclusionsThe establishment of a dyslexic-friendly environment depends on the systematic construction of a dyslexic sys?tem. Compared with refining the content relating to visual impairments in the copyright implementation regulations， thespecial Regulation for the Implementation of Dyslexics is more instructive and professional. Admittedly， the formula?tion of a special regulation cannot be done overnight. Before taking it on， it was more urgent to express some legal defi?nitions.As this paper has shown， the Marrakesh Treaty has been ratified in order to guarantee the acquisition of knowl?edge by dyslexics， thus improving their low living standards. Therefore， on the one hand， the population definition ofdyslexics should include intellectual and physical impairment， and on the other hand， \"a barrier-free way\" should beextended to the types of \"work\". Apart from the improvements at the domestic protection level， it is also important tostrengthen cooperation at the international level， and the detailed rules of cross-border exchange need to be realizedthrough diplomacy with Member States and the ABC. It should be understood that the copyright system is always inplace to protect the interests of copyright owners. From the perspective of safeguarding the interests of copyright own?ers， therefore， commercial availability and copyright royalties can be compensated to the copyright owners through theprocess of the enactment of rights and implied fair use. In addition， authorized entities must be strictly restricted to or?ganizations， pass an application process， and be authorized and filed by the government. This way， the government canstrengthen control and prevent the interests of copyright owners from being harmed by the arbitrary circulation of theirworks via various barrier-free ways that can be consumed by all people.

References：

[1] WU H D. General introduction to intellectual property rights the fourth edition[M]. Beijing： Renmin University ofChina Press， 2021（5）： 234.

[2] WANG Q. Research on the marrakesh treaty and its influence on chinese copyright legislation[J]. Law Science，2013（10）： 51-63.

[3] XU X. Research on copyright exception for persons with print disabilities of Canada—Based on the enforcement ofWIPO Marrakesh VIP treaty[J]. Library Development， 2017（3）： 17-22.

[4] CAI W Y. New progress in international copyright legislation based on copyright restrictions and exceptions for theprotection of the reading rights of the visually impaired—a brief introduction and review of the marrakesh treaty[J]. Library Theory and Practice， 2014（10）： 1-5.

[5] LU T， ZHAO J Q. On applicable difficulties and solutions for the fair use of accessible reading in the Al era[J]. Pub?lishing Research， 2021（10）： 5-11.

[6] ZHOU P. VR + Dyslexia Books： The dilemma， value， prospect of the copyright system and comments on the amend?ment to copyright law draft[J]. Editorial Friend， 2020（9）： 94-100.

[7] WANG Q， ZOU H. Extraterritorial legislation for the implementation of marrakesh treaty and thoughts on the copy?right exception system of dyslexia in China[J]. Science-Technology amp; Publication， 2021（8）： 101-107.

[8] Light up the ocean of knowledge for the blind—digital resources service of chinese braille[J]. Library Disability Re?search， 2018（1）： 74.

[9] CAO B. Study on the legal nature and protection path of GIF in sports events[J]. Northern Legal Science， 2019， 13（5）： 51-63.

[10] TANG J J. Study on the restriction of copyright of visually impaired persons using works[D]. Zhongnan Universityof Economics and Law， 2020： 24.

[11] UKIPO： Government Response to Marrakesh Consultation[R/OL]. （2018-09-10）[2023-05-13]. https： //assets.pub?lishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/738669/Marrakesh-Government-Response.pdf.

[12] XU X B. On the access right to works of visually impaired persons and the application of the Marrakech Treaty inChina's Copyright Law[J]. Intellectual Property， 2014（3）： 61-66.

[13] Act on Promotion of Improvement of Reading Environment for Visually Impaired Persons and Other Persons[R/OL]. （2019-06-28） [2023-05-13]. https： //www. sangiin. go. jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/gian/198/pdf/s1001980321980.pdf.

[14] Draft outline of the Basic Plan for the Act on Promotion of Improvement of Reading Environment for Persons withVision， etc. （Reading Barrier-Free Act）[R/OL]. （2019-12-15）[2023-05-13]. https： //www.mext.go.jp/kaigisiryo/content/20191215-mxt_kyousei02-000003208_5.pdf.

[15] European Parliament： European Accessibility Act[R/OL]. （2019-06-07）[2023-05-13]. https： //www.europarl.eu?ropa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/603973/EPRS_BRI（2017）603973_EN.pdf.

[16] The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union， Directive （Eu） 2019/882 of the European Parlia?ment and of the Council of 17 April 2019 [on the accessibility requirements for products and services[EB/OL].（2019-04-17）[2023-05-13]. https： //eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/882/oj.

[17] FU L X. Approval is Only the Beginning， Landing also Need Detailed Rules[N]. China Press and Publication Ra?dio amp; Telegraph， 2021-11-04（4）.

[18] CHANG L. The nature of contemporary social of philosophy of law[J]. The Farmers Consultant， 2019（3）： 223.

[19] BLAKE E R， CAROLINE B N. Revised Scoping Study on Access to Copyright Protected Works by Persons withDisabilities[R/OL]. （2019-03-13） [2023-05-13]. https： //www. wipo. int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_38/sccr_38_3.pdf.

[20] ZHOU P. Perspective on avoiding technical measures in the field of publishing for dyslexics in China[J]. Publish?ing Research， 2021（10）： 12-18.