Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/right-to-photocopy-4680191.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Right to photocopy | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Right to photocopy
-The Indian Express

The clause lists cases where users are exempted from copyright infringement and includes teachers and students “in the course of the activities of an educational institution”.

Copyright is not absolute and nor should it be, according to the Delhi High Court. Last week, the court ruled against five prominent academic publishing houses including Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, allowing Rameshwari Photocopy Services (based in the Delhi School of Economics) and Delhi University to make photocopied “course packs” of books and excerpts prescribed in the university’s syllabus. The decision is welcome — and also necessary.

The case goes back to 2012, when the publishers asked the court for a permanent injunction against the photocopy kiosk and Delhi University from making copies of works, citing the need to protect authors’ and publishers’ economic and creative rights. Almost immediately, students at the university formed the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) to mount a legal and ideological defence of the photocopy shop and their right to access knowledge.

In March 2013, over 300 academics — many of whose works were on reading lists in Delhi University syllabi — wrote to the publishers asking them to withdraw the case and expressed solidarity with the students. The case came down to the court’s interpretation of Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The clause lists cases where users are exempted from copyright infringement and includes teachers and students “in the course of the activities of an educational institution”. While the publishers insisted that this meant only teachers and students should be allowed to make copies, and not third parties like the photocopy shop or the university, the court disagreed. “Copyright,” the court said, “is meant to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge.”

It is true that copyright laws often protect the work and livelihood of authors, especially in cases of plagiarism and piracy. However, in a developing economy like India, neither economies of scale nor access justify the kind of enforcement of the law that the publishers were demanding. Academic works are usually prohibitively expensive in India and are bought by institutions and not individuals. There are usually a handful of copies of a prescribed text in university libraries — not nearly enough to meet the demand. In addition, most students cannot afford to buy their own copies. An educated workforce and citizenry is an essential need in a growing economy, especially one that is hungry for innovation. The court has, in this case, recognised that the protection of intellectual property needs to be balanced with social need.