Indian Court Says 'Copyright Is Not An Inevitable, Divine, Or Natural Right' And ...

[Mike]

Last week there was a big copyright ruling in India, where a court ruled against some big academic publishers in ruling that a photocopying kiosk that sold photocopied chapters from textbooks was not infringing on the copyrights of those publishers. We wrote about this case over three years ago, when it was first filed. It's actually fairly similar to a set of cases in the US that found college copyshops to be infringing -- leading to a massive increase in educational material costs for college students.



The Indian court went the other way. The full ruling takes a fair use-style look at the question, and recognizes that educational purposes are more important than padding the bank account of some big publishers. The ruling is pretty long, but there are a number of good points in there. Here's the one that a bunch of people have been quoting, noting that copyright is not inevitable, divine or a natural right:

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.

Now that's a damn good quote on copyright law.



The court also talks a lot about how technology has changed over time, and that it shouldn't be held back by copyright.

Today, nearly all students of the defendant no.2 University would be carrying cell phones and most of the cell phones have a camera inbuilt which enables a student to, instead of taking notes from the books in the library, click photographs of each page of the portions of the book required to be studied by him and to thereafter by connecting the phone to the printer take print of the said photographs or to read directly from the cell phone or by connecting the same to a larger screen. The same would again qualify as fair use and which cannot be stopped.



The German Federal Supreme Court in Re. the Supply of Photocopies of Newspaper Articles by Public Library [2000] E.C.C. 237 held that in a modern technologically highly developed nation like Germany, an extensive fast functioning and economic information exchange was vital; that is why the libraries were given the freedom to operate and the reproduction rights of authors were restricted in favour of freedom of information; that it was sufficient to escape liability for copyright infringement if the customer of the library could claim the benefit of the exemption which allowed the copying for personal use, of articles published in a periodical; whether or not the library charges for its service is immaterial;

The court similarly notes the hypocrisy of lawyers who regularly photocopy things now complaining about students doing the same:

What the defendant no.2 University is doing is not different from what is being done in the Bar Association library in the premises of this Court. With the advent of photocopying, the advocates of this Court, instead of carrying books from their residences / offices to this Court for citing judgments therefrom during the course of arguments and instead of giving in advance the list of such books to the Restorer of this Court and the Restorer of this Court also taking out the court's copies of the same books for the Judges to read, and all of which was cumbersome and time consuming, started having the photocopies of the relevant judgments made from the books in the Bar Association Library of this Court. Initially the said photocopying was got done by having the book issued from the library and carrying the same to the photocopier who had, for the convenience of the advocates, been granted a licence to operate from the premises of this Court. Subsequently, for expediency and to avoid the books being taken out of the library, the Bar Association library itself allowed the photocopier to install his machine within the library premises and any advocate could get the photocopy done by having the relevant judgment photocopied within the Bar Association library by paying the cost of photocopy as is fixed by the Bar Association.

It's always nice to see a good copyright ruling -- especially one that will make it easier for the dissemination of knowledge and learning in an academic setting.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story



Originally Published: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 06:23:00 PDT
source

[Sid]

This is a good example of the tipping point concept I've mentioned before. Copyright law will change as more and more "digital natives" reach positions of power. In this case the judge noted that when she went to law school she used to copy books, by hand--and that using a computer rather than a pencil doesn't change the nature of the activity which has always existed and always been considered [at least relatively] harmless.

It's also a clever use of the copyright act for the purpose it purports to serve "to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public." rather than the purpose it has been widely twisted to serve--the financial enrichment of middlemen, or even its real original purpose--to prevent the spread of politically dissenting opinion. Justice Rohini is a hero of the people.

[joew771]

copyright, especially 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.

That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. What the hell in life is an inevitible divine or natural right? It certainly doesn't/shouldn't cover something that an indivual created. So because Stephen King wrote the book 'Carrie' it should all of a sudden be shared by everyone freely because he wasn't conferred by god the divine right to write it? And he deserves no money for writing it? WTF? If you follow that ridiculous opinion, then anyone that writes any book, only wrote it to share it with everyone, and not to make money, which is ridiculous, and anyone who agrees with it is a moron.

India is retarded apparently. ©

^ notice the copyright symbol. Now no one can say that phrase without god saying it's ok and a written letter from god's attorney to me, signed and notarized.

[Sid]

Certainly someone in this thread is retarded...or trolling.

[joew771]

Certainly someone in this thread is retarded...or trolling.

Lol. I would have to assume you are talking about me. Mr. passive aggresive. But what about what I said is wrong?

You think it's right that someone who creates an original work, shouldn't earn any money for it?

I'm a pirate, and steal all sorts of things, books, movies, etc., but that doesn't mean that the author of a book shouldn't be able to be paid by the people who legitimately buy it.

[Sid]

You haven't even paid me for the first two posts I've made in this thread so why would I bother answering you?

Serious question. By your logic, I would not and should not.

Q.E.D.

[joew771]

You haven't even paid me for the first two posts I've made in this thread so why would I bother answering you?

Serious question. By your logic, I would not and should not.

Q.E.D.

That's completely stupid.

If you think your posts that noone cares about are equal to a full length novel, then you need some psychiatric help.

But seriously, obviously someone who writes a book should be compensated for it. Just like someone who writes a song or makes a movie or whatever.

If noone was ever paid for what they wrote/created/whatever, then noone would ever create anything, and we would be left with stupid shit like your nonsensical posts.

[Arzoo]

Interesting ruling, as most of the Post Grad Textbooks are scanned, xeroxed here by ALL students.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

The Indian court expressed the basic legal principle in use almost everywhere:

Educational use of a small portion of a work entitles no fee to copyright holders.
Only if the whole work is used [for education] can a fee be negotiated for, not demanded.