Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday March 13 2017, @11:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the information-wants-to-be-free dept.

Back in September last year, Mike wrote about the remarkable court ruling in India that copyright is not inevitable, divine or a natural right. As we have been reporting since 2013, the case in question was brought by three big Western publishers against Delhi University and a photocopy shop over "course packs" -- bound collections of photocopied extracts from books and journals that are sold more cheaply than the sources. Although the High Court of Delhi ruled that photocopying textbooks in this way is fair use, that was not necessarily the end of the story: the publishers might have appealed to India's Supreme Court. But as the Spicy IP site reports, they didn't:

In a stunning development, OUP, CUP and Taylor & Francis just withdrew their copyright law suit 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!

[...] That's an important point. So often it seems that copyright only ever gets longer and stronger, with the public always on the losing side. The latest news from India shows that very occasionally, it's the public that wins.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170309/07340536878/photocopying-textbooks-is-fair-use-india-western-publishers-withdraw-copyright-suit-against-delhi-university.shtml


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:25AM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:25AM (#478720) Journal

    And if I buy an e-book, that particular concatenation of one's and zero's belongs to me, and I can do with it what I see fit, like replicate it onto a tablet, or a smart-phone, or into a bit-torrent seed. Copywhat? Imaginary Property Artificial Scarcity Digital Restrictions Malice, you say? All educational use is covered by fair use under any same copyright regime. It is only in America, where the Bush Family and others have monetized education, that absurdities like textbook copyrighting exist.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:41AM (4 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:41AM (#482636)

    All educational use is covered by fair use under any same copyright regime. It is only in America, where the Bush Family and others have monetized education, that absurdities like textbook copyrighting exist.

    Not so. Here in the UK you're not allowed to photocopy textbooks.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:43PM (3 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:43PM (#482882) Journal

      You make my point quite nicely, since you were not able to comprehend the proviso? Copyright of educational materials is evil and tends to the industrialization of education and the lowering of the educational levels of any country where such is allowed, like the (formerly) Great Britiain. I blame Margot Thacker! All educational use is covered by fair use, morally. And legally as well under any sane copyright regime. What is that saying about Mad Dogs and English copyright holders?

      Short version for management types: you are factually correct. It also doesn't matter.

      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:11AM (2 children)

        by Wootery (2341) on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:11AM (#483130)

        I see your point, but if we permitted wholesale copying of textbooks, where's the revenue (for the authors and publishers) going to come from?

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:33AM (1 child)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:33AM (#483138) Journal

          Well, you see, that is the point. There is now a movement called OER, Open Educational Resources, dedicated to producing copyright free textbooks and the like, so they can be used without cost to the student. Who pays for this? Well, professors already write the vast majority of the materials their students use, and they are paid by their institutions. Sure, some of them, like the old-school profs I used to know, dream of getting filthy rich off of a record-breaking popular textbook in their field. But let me tell you, even in cases where the prof does produce an extremely popular textbook, their royalties are pathetic. Second point? Distribution? Much like academic journals, and Medieval scribes, publishers used to actually serve a purpose in the dissemination of knowledge, providing print copies to libraries and to scholars and students. But putting ink on paper is no longer the necessary, or even preferred method of distribution, and those publishers that are asserting copyright are actually restricting the flow of information and learning rather than facilitating it. So, they can go die in a ditch. Viva Aaron Swartz, says this millennia-old student!

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:00AM

            by Wootery (2341) on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:00AM (#483144)

            That's awesome. I wish them the best. And I agree, the current state of academic publishing is somewhere between tragic and criminal.