SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 13 2017, @11:50PM (12 children)
The reason public won in this instance (TFA quote with my emphasis):
However, IANAL, but the last phrase in the para above seems to contain a ruling which may be independent of a specific copyright legislation and one that I'd like to see more frequent: whenever somebody alleges otherwise, each individual act of copy must be proven/judged on its own (including the penalty if it turns true).
I have a hunch this was the very reason for which the publishers withdrew the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @11:53PM (10 children)
It is in the U.S. also. You pay for it, it's your property. Do with as you please.
The end
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:22AM
The way I read, it may not be quite the same.
Scenario: borrow a paper-printed book for uni's library, scan/photocopy it then return it.
In India, TFA says it's legal. Is it the same in US?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:55AM (8 children)
You must be new to the copyright and IP concept...
If you buy a paper book, this particular set of printed pages is yours. You didn't buy the right to disseminate copies, only to let all your friends read it too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:25AM (5 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:41AM (4 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
That's awesome. I wish them the best. And I agree, the current state of academic publishing is somewhere between tragic and criminal.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:08PM (1 child)
College libraries won't let you copy the 3 pages you need from books to complete that small assignment. When I was a kid copying pages from library books was routine and nobody thought anything of it.
Recently I went to an OfficeMax to run off copies of my degree (so I could have copies for interviews) and before I got started the nosey attendant said that for legal reasons they were no longer allowed to copy diplomas. I was furious as fuck -- since I had multiple forms of ID to prove it was my diploma -- whether or not it was just the store covering their ass or some kind of deliberate collusion between them academia to make me buy more diplomas.
Pressure from greedy academic institutions and the American textbook racket are causing this -- but with the adoption of more and more open texts at the college level, their days are numbered.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:15PM
Most phones (let alone real cameras, and obviously scanners) now come with enough megapixels that refusing to copy something just means you're going to print a picture of it.
As a bonus, the NSA has to hack your computer to get it, rather than simply grab the hard drive in the copy machine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:12PM
When I was in grad school in the 90s, all the Indian students had copies of the physics textbooks they got from India. The books were all blatant photocopies done by a company who bound them up in paperback form and sold them for something like $5 to $10. I don't think this issue was about anyone copying their own purchased copies for themselves, but it was about a whole industry built up up doing this practice as a business model. I think even most of the "information wants to be free" crowd would argue that isn't a justifiable model, but then again, a fair number of people around here brag how clever they are to download torrents of things because they feel entitled to it, so maybe not.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday March 13 2017, @11:53PM
To be true, title should read "Photocopying Textbooks for Educational Purposes is Fair Use in India"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:19AM (1 child)
Could it be implicit protectionism as the biggest defendants were "Western publishers"?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:55AM
Occam's razor: it is more likely that none of other publishers (western or not) have had this crazy idea that their "divine-issued copyright" trumps a country law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:28AM (10 children)
Instead of making college free make the textbooks free. When I went to college (early 80s) the textbooks were easily twice the cost of tuition.
Lets be honest, for a 4 year degree nothing has changed in a good 50-100 years. Same algebra, same calculus, same physics, same biology, same chemistry, same world studies, etc etc etc.
So now you spend $100 a semester and maybe $40 for paper/ink to print out the textbooks.
IMHO free college is a non starter, too many unqualified idiots will sign up thinking "jobs, hell yeah!!" but won't be willing to/be capable of doing the coursework.
Added advantage? Old farts like me can get the textbooks for free and learn the new improved stuff.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Uncle_Al on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:37AM
"Old farts like me can get the textbooks for free and learn the new improved stuff."
If nothing has changed in your lifetime, what's to learn?
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:22AM (1 child)
Physics and biology has changed significantly. For example, quantum field theory was only just emerging 100 years ago. The Higgs boson was discovered five years ago.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:11PM
99% of textbooks are sold to freshmen working inclined planes, kinematics, maybe second semester they hit electromagnetic theory, with or without calculus. Cool trivial pursuit stuff is cool, but doesn't really matter to learning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:30AM
Yup, nothing has happened in the world in 50 years.
(Score: 4, Informative) by patrick on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:35AM (1 child)
nothing has changed in a good 50-100 years ... same physics, same biology, same chemistry, same world studies, etc etc etc.
The following timelines seem to disagree.
Timeline of fundamental physics discoveries [wikipedia.org]
Timeline of biology and organic chemistry [wikipedia.org]
Timeline of chemistry [wikipedia.org]
20th-century events [wikipedia.org]
I support free textbooks, but a textbook from 1917 wouldn't be my first pick.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:53PM
I completely agree that we've had significant changes in most fields. On the other hand, there are still instances where a textbook (or significant portions of a textbook) from a century ago could still be more than adequate. Most math classes except for really advanced math majors, for example. A lot of freshman physics (as VLM said in another post). Chemistry textbooks would need some editing, but a lot of the basic stuff about reactions, basic calculations, etc. covered in a typical first-semester college course is still there. Etc.
I'm frankly surprised there isn't more of an industry to lightly edit public domain textbooks from these fields and republish them for cheap. In some classes, you could just add in a few sections to cover more standard curricula for today and excise the really out-of-date stuff. And for the amount of work it would take to put together, you could probably sell the book for 1/5th the cost of a modern textbook (maybe less; a lot of it will probably just be printing costs).
If I were teaching freshman calculus or mechanics or something, I'd definitely consider drawing significantly on a public domain textbook from a century ago, either lightly edited and/or supplemented by my own materials where necessary.
(Score: 3, Touché) by ese002 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @04:27AM
Instead of making college free make the textbooks free. When I went to college (early 80s) the textbooks were easily twice the cost of tuition.
You will be happy to learn that this problem has been resolved. Tuition is now much more expensive than books. Books aren't cheaper though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @04:45AM (1 child)
IMHO free college is a non starter, too many unqualified idiots will sign up thinking "jobs, hell yeah!!" but won't be willing to/be capable of doing the coursework.
That's almost already the case. However, instead of being incapable of doing the coursework, many of the unqualified idiots are actually capable of doing the coursework because a grand majority of colleges have next to no standards. Our society is hostile towards real education; schools are encouraged to train people to become worker drones, rote memorization is confused with understanding, education is seen as a mere means to an end (good jobs and money), and assignments are one-size-fits-all.
As long as you force colleges to sharply raise their standards, free college wouldn't necessarily greatly increase the amount of anti-intellectuals who attend,
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:16PM
Yes, this one right here -- in new America's preschool-themed "everybody gets a medal for showing up to the race" degrees are handed out similarly, especially now because it's racist to give people failing grades or not allow them to arbitrarily skip exams because "stress from the election" or whatever.
Somewhat related, you wouldn't believe how many engineering grads are taking work as techs because corporations are looking for no less than 3 years' direct industry experience, for all shades of STEM grads. There's a reason why corporations are being more and more silent about the "lack of qualified graduates" while they're not even giving recent grads the time of day -- while hiring more and more H1-B subhumans.
The corporations preach diversity and inclusion as a way to insinuate that critics of their H1-B use are racist, as well as to justify bringing in more H1-B hires - but are not very diverse at all. Their populations are overwhelmingly White and Chink, often with a significant Indian H1-B army component. But Blacks are still underrepresented, unless you count those imaginary Google Doodles that imply that our space program is run entirely by Blacks.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:52AM
I wish it were $140 per semester. Average yearly tuition at a 4 year state college is $9,410.
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/college-costs/college-costs-faqs [collegeboard.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:17AM (1 child)
The reason the publishers withdrew from the case is likely not that they 'saw the light', but that they reckoned that setting a precedent would be worse for them than not setting a precedent. By withdrawing, they maintain the possibility of fighting a similar case in future where they are more likely to a get a judgment favourable to them from the court.
If there is carte blanche to photocopy as much of a (text)book as you like in India for the purposes of education, it means, effectively, that there is no remunerative market for textbooks in India, as the first copy that makes it into the country can be photocopied as much as is necessary for the education of the relevant students. This is probably not an ideal state of affairs, as in the long run, it probably means that Indian students will have decreased access to internationally published textbooks. As a result, in this state of affairs, it is probably arguable that limits to fair use are a good thing. What it might do is encourage the production of textbooks in India under less restrictive licences than normal copyright - such as public domain (if possible) or using the various Creative Commons licences.
I won't see it in my lifetime, but I hope one day that global copyright laws will become sane again.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:21PM
Thanks to the miracle of mass production, the cost of producing a book is lower than the cost of manually photocopying a book. It merely means they're a manufacturing company competing on manufacturing cost, instead of a rights company extracting as much licensing fee from the IP as possible. This is probably good.
The numbers make sense.... Lets pick something nice and triggering like "A Hymn Before Battle" by John Ringo thats $7.99 in paperback retail price with 480 pages that's 1.7 cents per page not financially viable to photocopy unless someone else is paying for the copying LOL. Knowing typical markups I think the cost of actually printing a paperback book are "About a penny per page" if you're going in non-profit and no wholesalers or distributors (like if you went vanity press)
Its also worth noting that when I did stuff like this in the USA, the days of one cent or two cent copies are kinda past. Last I checked "fedex kinkos" was charging ten cents. I had one EE class by a prof I didn't like who spec'd a small book costing over $1/page in the 80s so I borrowed a fellow student's book and copied the whole thing for only about a buck instead of $125.
Kids these days just download a pirated PDF or DJVU to their ipad tablet anyway. You can talk all you want about the joy of reading off legacy paper but tell a college kid he gets $125 of beer or $125 of old fashioned textbook and they tend to decide pretty quick...