PDF 22nd Sept. 2016
The Delhi High Court verdict ( नणय) that photocopying portions of academic publications to
make course packs for students does not amount to copyright infringement (उ लंघन/अवहे लना)
has been interpreted by many as a victory for the wider public interest of ensuring affordable
access to quality educational material. The only question of law that arose in the suit filed by
Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis was whether the
making of course packs by the Delhi University by authorizing a photocopying store to make
numerous copies of course material drawn from different books amounts to copyright
infringement. The court says copyright is not a natural or common law right in India, but is
subject to statute ( वधान/क़ानू न). It proceeds to hold that photocopying for academic purposes is
not an infringement as Section 52(1) (i) of the Copyright Act permits the making of copies of
literary (सा हि यक) works by a teacher or pupil ( श य/शा गद) ‘in the course of instruction’, a
phrase interpreted to cover whole academic sessions, from the preparation of syllabus onwards.
Given that the law contains provisions barring (को छोड़कर/के सवाय) infringement of copyright
and listing acts that do not constitute infringement, there is no doubt that the legislature wanted
to balance copyright protection with the public interest in ensuring access. Interestingly, the
judge sees the ‘no infringement’ clauses as being consistent (तकयु त/संगत) with articles in the
Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,
which provide for domestic legislation to permit reproductions for specific purposes, as long as
they do not conflict (टकराव) with normal exploitation (समु पयोजन/उपयोग) of the works or
unreasonably prejudice (प पात) the rights-holder. The publishers have argued, in vain, that
universities should not allow unrestricted photocopying, but instead apply for licenses through
the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization, a registered copyright society. The publishers may
pursue this aspect in their appeal, if there is one. The verdict may justly raise the concern
(मामला/मु ा) whether conferring ( दान करना) unrestricted reprographic rights on academic
institutions will drive reputed publishers out of the field of education. It is true that academic
publications, especially international ones, are expensive, putting them beyond the reach of many
students. But the question is whether the balance between the competing interests has been fully
preserved in the law. If reputed publishers feel that there is insufficient copyright protection and
back out of educational publishing in the country, it will be equally injurious to the public
interest.
1. Verdict ( नणय)
Synonyms: Decision, Judgment, Ruling
Antonyms: Accusation
2. Infringement (उ लंघन/अवहे लना)
Synonyms: Violation, Infraction, Disobedient
Antonyms: Obedience, To Follow
3. Statute ( वधान/क़ानू न)
Synonyms: Legislation, Provision, Enactment
4. Barring (को छोड़कर/के सवाय)
Synonyms: Except, Excluding, Without
Antonyms: Including
5. Consistent (तकयु त/संगत)
Synonyms: Compatible, Relevant, Rational
Antonyms: Erratic, Unfitting, Irrational
6. Conflict (टकराव)
Synonyms: Combat, Clash, Encounter, Face Off
Antonyms: Harmony, Peace, Calmness
7. Exploitation (समु पयोजन/उपयोग)
Synonyms: Use, Utilization, Make good use of
Antonyms: Idling, Inactiveness
8. Prejudice (प पात)
Synonyms: Bias, Favoritism, Partiality,
Antonyms: Fairness, Justice, Impartiality
9. Concern (मामला/मु ा)
Synonyms: Case, Matter, Entanglement
Antonyms: Unconcern
10. Conferring ( दान करना)
Synonyms: Endow, Bestow, Provide
Antonyms: Keep, Take
Daily current affairs Quiz
GK Quiz
English Quiz
Aptitude Quiz
Reasoning Quiz
Computer Quiz
Banking Quiz
Marketing Quiz
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
http://currentaffairs.wifistudy.com/
http://gk.wifistudy.com/
http://english.wifistudy.com/
http://aptitude.wifistudy.com/
http://reasoning.wifistudy.com/
http://computer.wifistudy.com/
http://bankingawareness.wifistudy.com/
http://marketing.wifistudy.com/