Chanakya IAS Academy Blog

The article explains the recent judgement made by Delhi High Court in Delhi University photocopy case and its implications worldwide.

  • In its much awaited judgment in the Delhi University photocopying case (The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services), the Delhi High Court has dismissed the copyright infringement petition initiated by three publishers against a photocopy shop located in the premises of Delhi University.
  • This case, which was being closely tracked by students, teachers and the publishing industry alike, was seen as one with immense significance for questions of access to knowledge.
  • While the publishers made the argument that the creation of course packs and the photocopying of academic material for the same amounted to an infringement of the exclusive copyright of the authors and publishers, the defendants argued that the reproduction of materials for educational purposes fell within the exceptions to copyright under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act.

Not a moral right

  • In his considered and sharply reasoned judgment, the High Court arrives at the conclusion that copyright is a statutory right and not a natural right, and hence any right that is granted to owners is also limited by exceptions carved out by law.
  • The nature of Section 52 of the Copyright Act is such that any act falling within its scope will not constitute infringement. Section 52(1)(i) allows for the reproduction of any work i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or ii) as part of the questions to be answered in an examination; or iii) in answers to such questions.
  • The crux of the dispute was about whether course packs fall within this exception. The petitioners tried to provide a narrow reading of the section, claiming that at best what the section allows for is the provision of materials in the course of a lecture and spatially restricted to a classroom.
  • The court, while rejecting this claim, argues that “instruction” cannot be narrowly understood and, through a historically informed reading of the phrase “in the course of”, concludes that instruction includes the entire ambit of pedagogy from the creation of syllabus to teaching and provision of reading materials.
  • It then locates the question of education within a changing technological environment, and argues that “when an action, if onerously done, is not an offence, it cannot become an offence when, owing to advancement in technology doing thereof has been simplified”.
  • Photocopiers have just made the task simpler and faster, but if the act of copying for a particular purpose is itself not illegal, and “the effect of the action is the same, the difference in the mode of action cannot make a difference so as to make one an offence”.

For progress

  • In a clear statement of the philosophical basis of copyright law, Justice Endlaw rejects the populist and unidimensional assumption that copyright is about the protection of the property rights of owners.
  • He notes instead: “Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.”
  • The Delhi High Court has restored to copyright jurisprudence a clear mandate for the future, one which is cognisant that the end goal of technology is the improvement of our lives (material and intellectual) and “no law can be interpreted so as to result in any regression of the evolvement of the human being for the better”.

Global implications

  • The judgment has immense consequences beyond India and is a bold articulation of the principles of equitable access to knowledge — and one that deserves to be emulated globally.
  • For a while now, the globalisation of copyright norms through international law (Berne Convention, TRIPS Agreement) has been accompanied by the globalisation of copyright standards that have primarily emerged from the global north.
  • Copyright law had effectively been hijacked by narrow commercial interests. Thus even when it came to discussing fair use and exceptions and limitations, countries have found themselves constrained by judicial precedents from the U.S. and elsewhere that have defined quantitative restrictions on photocopying.
  • In a radical move, the Delhi High Court has concluded that if Indian law makers have allowed through statute for the reproduction of a copyrighted work in the course of instruction, it has done so on the basis of purpose (teaching) and with the conviction that this does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the author.
  • While arriving at this conclusion, is acutely aware of the specific needs of countries like India where libraries and universities have to cope with the needs of thousands of students simultaneously, and it would be naïve to expect every student to buy copies of every book.

Question:

Aggressively pushed by the copyright lobby copyright law had effectively been hijacked by narrow commercial interests. But, the Delhi High Court in Delhi University photocopy case has restored to copyright jurisprudence a clear mandate for the future — one which recognises that the end goal of technology is the improvement of our lives. Examine.

Suggested Points:

  • How copyright law had been used to promote commercial interests.
  • The judgement and its basis by Delhi High Court.
  • How it will have positive impact impact in the society, with example.

Link:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/judgment-in-the-delhi-university-photocopying-case-a-blow-for-the-right-to-knowledge/article9121260.ece

English: Download

Hindi: Download

Read 439 times Last modified on Monday, 19 September 2016 10:43
Login to post comments