[LIS-Forum] The Delhi University Copyright case

[jharavu]

​Thanks to Sri. Arunachalam for bringing this important case and its
conclusion to all library/information professionals. This information
should also be made available to teachers as well so that they do not help
in undermining or overusing the freedom to copy.

I fully endorse, Sri. Arunachalam's words: 'One hopes that the coming years
will see a more progressive partnership between publishers
and academics/students and the embracing of newer models of creation and
content distribution, open access and the like.'

Haravu.  ​

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Subbiah Arunachalam <
subbiah.arunachalam at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Breaking News: OUP and other Publishers Withdraw Copyright Suit Against
> Delhi University and Photocopier*
>
> by Shamnad Basheer <https://spicyip.com/author/shamnad-basheer> March 9,
> 2017
> <https://spicyip.com/2017/03/breaking-news-oup-and-other-
> publishers-withdraw-copyright-suit-against-delhi-university-
> and-photocopier.html>
>
>
>
>
> In a stunning development, OUP, CUP and Taylor & Francis just withdrew
> their
>  copyright law suit  <https://spicyip.com/tag/d-u-photocopy-case>filed
> against Delhi University (and its photocopier, Rameshwari) 5 years ago!
> They indicated this to the Delhi high court in a short and succinct filing
> made this morning.
>
> This withdrawal brings to an end one of the most hotly contested IP battles
> ever, pitting as it did multinational publishers against academics and
> students. The law suit was filed as far back as 2012 and it dragged on for
> 5 long years!
>
> For those interested, a brief timeline of the dispute is as below:
>
> 1.     Leading publishers sue Delhi University (DU) and Rameshwari for
> copyright infringement in 2012. Alleging that the creation and distribution
> of course packs containing excerpted copyright content violates copyrights
> in several of their books.
>
> 2.     Delhi high court immediately grants interim injunction in favour of
> publishers, preventing DU and Rameshwari from photocopying and
> creating/distributing course-packs.
>
> 3.     A society of students (ASEAK) and academics (SPEAK) intervene in the
> dispute and are heard by the court.
>
> 4.     The Delhi high court hears the main matter on merits and rules in
> favour of DU and students, holding that the photocopying for the purpose of
> creating educational course packs falls within the bounds of the
> educational exception in the indian copyright act (section 52(1)(i)).
>
> 5.     Publishers appeal to the division bench of the Delhi high court.
> While taking issue with some of the findings of the trial judge, the
> division bench nonetheless upholds the ultimate finding that the
> photocopying is covered under the terms of the educational exception
> contained in section 52(1)(i) of India’s Copyright Act. The court however
> rules that each instance of photocopying has to be tested individually
> against the terms of section 52(1)(i) which mandates that copying has to be
> “in the course of educational instruction”.
>
> 6.     Therefore, the Delhi Division bench remands the matter back to the
> single judge of delhi (trial court) to decide whether each of the alleged
> instances of copyright fell within the bounds of the educational
> exceptional or not
>
> 7.     IRRO (a collecting society of publishers) files an application to be
> impleaded in the Delhi trial court. Court refuses and the IRRO appeals to
> the division bench
>
> 8.     Publishers file an application this morning asking that suit be
> withdrawn.
>
> So those of you expecting some fireworks at the Supreme Court, this is it!
> End of an era. End of a saga. But one that ultimately tested the bounds of
> copyright law in India. And clarified that while educational photocopying
> is permissible, there are limits to this as well. And that any copying must
> comport closely with the intended purpose (“in the course of instruction”).
> In that sense, publishers have made some gains in at least ensuring that a
> complete free for all regime is not what is intended by the law. But a
> circumspect one, where the copying has to fall within the bounds of the
> educational exception.
>
> Overall, this is a huge victory for educational access and public interest
> in India. And very welcome in a world that was witnessing a rather one
> sided ratcheting up of IP norms, at the cost of all else! One hopes that
> the coming years will see a more progressive partnership between publishers
> and academics/students and the embracing of newer models of creation and
> content distribution, open access and the like.
>
> ps: For those interested, all our posts on this case can be found here
> <https://spicyip.com/tag/d-u-photocopy-case>.
>
>
>
> --
> Arun
>
> http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4398-4658
> http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9925-2009
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/pipermail/lis-forum/
> attachments/20170317/0c9f4a2c/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> LIS-Forum mailing list
> LIS-Forum at ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/pipermail/lis-forum/attachments/20170318/ceb8452a/attachment.html>