Pages

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Who Is Afraid Of Copyright Infringement? Campaign To Save D School Photocopy Shop


(Prof. Nivedita Menon signing the Photocopied Copy of her book “Recovering Subversion: Feminist Politics beyond the law” at the protest organized by Campaign to Save D-School photocopy shop at Delhi School of Economics. Photo by Anshul Kumar Pandey)

A Public Meeting organised by Campaign to Save D School Photocopy Shop, was held at Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University. This event was a part of the long drawn campaign on the issue of ‘copyright infringement’ provoked by the clamping down on photocopying by the Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis Group. The public meeting saw the attendance of several authors and people associated with the field of writing and publishing and discussed a range of issues and matters related to authorship, workings of the publishing industry, the Delhi University system of promotion and its nexus with publication houses. The meeting began with an introduction of the campaign and the law suit taken up by the three publishers against Rameshwori Photo Copy Shop on the “course pack”. In spite of the spontaneous nature of the campaign the need to caution against taking this as a stray incident was emphasised by Mr. Usman, a representative of the campaign.

Touching upon the workings of the publishing industry Mr. Sudhanva Deshpande, Managing Editor, LeftWord Publishing expressed that he also works with the publishing house and emphasised that many from the publishing world are also with the campaign of the students and that the three publishers Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis group are not representative of them. Appreciating the organising of the public meeting on the issue of ‘copyright infringement’ Mr. Deshpande further stated on the ecosystem that needs to be in place for publishing of books to happen, knowledge is required to be shared and spread widely as possible and it makes sense to have a system where books are read and discussed.

Besides those present for the meeting, a number of authors/ speakers who were unable to attend the meeting also send their statement to be read out in solidarity with the campaign. Nandini Sundar, Sociologist and Activists in her statement picked up from The Law Suit Para 17 filed by the publishers and said “Para 17 is the worst since it insidiously invokes the rights of the authors. For one, authors of academic book s are paid such small percentages in royalties and the print runs are so low, that this is scarcely a matter of concern for them. Second, the primary interest of authors is having their books read and being prescribed in courses. Any academic author would tell you that they would much rather have their books widely photocopied than not read at all… ”

Professor Satish Deshpande Head of Department, Sociology signed his book “Contemporary India” as a part of the public meeting. He emphasised that the social obligation of the academic writer is not with the publishing houses but rather the books are being written with public funding and support from public academic institutions.

Echoing similar views Prof. Nivedita Menon spoke from the point of view of University Promotion System and the Publishing houses. She shared that there is no academic writer that she knows of who is not livid with the actions of the publishers. It is their action that is illegal. She further stated “You (students) pay us, the publishers does not pay us” and further stated that the publishers should not speak on our behalf. She shared the letter of protest and said that the 99 percent of the academic writers would endorse the actions against the erring publishing houses.

Public intellectual and author, Arundhuti Roy who couldn’t make it to the meeting had sent a signed photocopy of her latest book Broken Republic and also conveyed her ‘best wishes to the campaign’.

Uma Chakravarty, feminist historian who could not be there for the public meeting sent her signed photocopied book The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism. She also sent in her statement “For an academic the photocopying revolution is as important or even more so than the Neolithic revolution and the Industrial Revolution for history. All my works are mine, my labour and the more it is read the more fulfilled I am as scholar. Copyright can go to hell”

Subhash Gatade, activist and columnist signed his book The Saffron Condition and expressed his solidarity with the campaign. Dr. Aditya Nigam after signing a copy of his book The Insurrection of Little Selves reiterated the need to look at long term solutions to fight the might of the likes of Oxford University Press. He expressed the need to form a consortium with small publishers and work out a modality of copyleft where the profits of the publishing houses are also not adversely affected and also the academic writers have the option of shifting from publishing houses like them.

Ravi Sundaram, Senior Fellow, CSDS expressed his solidarity by signing a copy of his book Pirate Modernity and stated that the incident is not a one off stray incident but rather a new trend which will lead to privatisation of the education system. Prof. Ujjwal Singh, Department of Political Science DU, voicing similar concerns also donated his signed photocopied book The State democracy and anti-terror laws in India.

Sudha Vasan, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology spoke on the need to resist the monetary value assigned to books on the pages, quality of cover etc. She stated that “the value of book is decided by the number of readers (of the book) and the discussions initiated by the book”. Voicing an earlier discussion on the same issue “Eklavya’s burden” Sudha spoke on the accessibility to education and books and the trend which has been since centuries of denying certain people of certain caste, gender etc.

Lawrence Liang of the Alternative Law Forum and Prof. Shamnad Basheer of National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) Kolkata, also reiterated that the issue is not of a singular lawsuit and eloquently emphasised on the life of literature as not encompassed within the four corners of law and legality but rather that thoughts are free-flowing and does not recognise the such set corners. They said that efforts were on to students and authors in the law suit since they will be affected the most through the outcome of the case.

The public meeting concluded with the speakers and authors donating their photocopied books to the Ratan Tata Library for greater reach and accessibility to the student community. A consistent mobilisation being needed, the meeting concluded with a call for a regular conglomeration on the issue which will be held every Wednesday, 3:00 p.m. in DSE campus.

Statement by Prof. Amartya Sen (Nobel laureate) in support of the campaign against the consortium of three publishers.

I am very distressed to learn via my friend Partha Chatterjee about the attitude of the OUP on the use of photocopied course packs for the benefit of students. I do not sign join letters but I would like to state that I am personally distressed as an OUP author to learn about this policy decision. I hope something can be done to make the academic arrangements for the education of students less difficult and more sensible.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Campaign to Save D-School Photocopy Shop: Memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor

(Students protesting against the Oxford and Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis publishers in North Campus, Delhi University. Photo by Anshul Kumar Pandey)
 
(Originally published on Youth Ki Awaaz)

Below is the text of the memorandum that the Campaign to save D-School Photocopy shop submitted to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi after taking out a protest march protesting against the suit filed by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis Publication on Rameshwari Photocopy Shop demanding Rs 60 lakh in damages incurred due to “unauthorized” copying and distribution of the parts of their books.

7 November 2012
To,
The Vice-Chancellor
University of Delhi
New Delhi — 110 070

Dear Sir,

We are students of Delhi University who are seriously offended by the action of three large international publishing houses, namely Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis Group, who have filed a legal suit (Case No.: OS 2439/2012) against Rameshwari Photocopying Services (photocopy shop situated on the premises of the Delhi School of Economics) and Delhi University based on the claim that the reproduction of photocopied Course Packs constitute copyright infringement. Moreover we are greatly disappointed with the weak stance the University has taken that has resulted in the Delhi High Court issuing an order of injunction on the production of Course Packs.

Course Packs comprise photocopied sections of books that are prescribed as necessary readings in our syllabi. These course packs are the only affordable way to access all our essential readings. The Indian Copyright Act provides an exception in the context of education. Sec 52 (1) (a) and 52 (1) (i) of the Indian copyright act recognize that activities in furtherance of education such as creating course packs (by photocopying chapters of books etc.) are permissible and do not amount to copyright infringement. Such an exception in the educational context was introduced in the Act by the framers of our constitution keeping in mind the special importance of education in a developing country such as ours. Its rationale, to ensure equitable access to educational resources to all, continues to be relevant given the levels of socio-economic disparity that persist till today. Further, the Act does not specify any quantitative restriction on the amount of text to be reproduced. We do not believe, therefore, that the production of course packs amounts to any copyright infringement. Such valid educational exceptions to copyright infringement also exist in several developed economies such as the US and Canada.

We also want to stress on that fact that Rameshwari Photocopy Service, like the many other photocopy shops contracted by Delhi University on its various colleges and campuses, is bound by the contract they sign with the University. Quoting from Delhi University’s own written statement submitted to the Court in the said case, on page 4, para 7 you state: “The facility of photocopying limited portions of works for educational and research purposes could have been provided within the library had the University adequate space, resources and manpower at its disposal. Instead it granted the facility of photocopying to Defendant No. 1 (Rameshwari Photocopy Service) keeping the interest of students in mind. And keeping in view the law of the land and permitted Defendant No. 1 to photocopy pages of chapters of single copy books, out of print books, not to be issued books and rare books on getting requests from faculty members, researchers and students.” Since it is clear that Rameshwari Photocopy Service is carrying out an important function in making essential reading material accessible to students and researchers, Delhi University must stand by Rameshwari Photocopy Service and not attempt at washing its hands off the issue.

Moreover, this contract implies that DU contracted photocopy shops cannot charge students, coming from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, more than a stipulated amount (40paise/page in the case of Rameshwari Photocopy shop). This ensures that students’ right to affordably access readings is protected against the excessive commercial gains that a photocopy shop owner might seek to make.

Finally, the bullying tactics of the above mentioned consortium of international publishers must be resisted by Delhi University. It has come to our knowledge that the publishers are demanding DU sign a licensing agreement with the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation. This will lead to an increase in the cost of photocopying and will also set restrictions on the proportion of a book that can be photocopied. However, since the photocopy of course packs does not amount of copyright infringement as per our own law, there is no reason we should be made to pay any extra license fee or limit the proportion of a text that may be photocopied. An increase the cost of photocopying will lead to the effective exclusion of many students from access to the essential readings for our courses. Moreover it would be an impediment to academic freedom that is essential to the life of a University.

Given the critical importance of the issue at hand, and the existence of a strong legal defence in favour of students’ right to access and reproduce educational material, we register our great dismay at the weak stance taken by the Delhi University in the Delhi High Court that has led to an order of injunction being passed by the Court prohibiting the production of course packs. Although the written statement submitted by the Delhi University in the Court presents a defence of the practice of photocopying, it was rife with grammar and other errors which ensured that the opposite attorneys were able to allege that two sentences (see page 14 para 21) amounted to an admission by Delhi University that the creation of course packs was indeed an illegal activity. We strongly condemn this callous attitude of the University that is bound to have serious impacts on the students. It is imperative that Delhi University admits to the responsibility of ensuring that students’ interests are adequately represented in Court proceedings.

We demand:

1. That the University counsel take a strong and consistent stand in Court in favour of students’ interests


2. That the University pleads in Court that it was misunderstood and file for a review of the Court order in the next hearing.

3. That the University counsel takes a determined and united stand with Rameshwari Photocopy shop counsel on the issue of course packs not being any infringement of publishers’ copyrights, and admit that production of course packs are covered by the contract signed between the University and Rameshwari Photocopy shop

4. That the University must not enter into any license agreement with any of the publishers, or their collective or with the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation regarding the issue of photocopying of texts, which may result in any increase in the cost for photocopying for students or any restriction on the amount/proportion of a work to be photocopied, as this would amount to curbing the entitlement provided in Sec 52 of the Indian Copyright Act.

5. That the defunct Delhi University Press, which at present is reduced to producing answer sheets for examinations, be revived and be actively used for providing affordable education material to students and other University members.

6. That Delhi University (including all its department libraries) refrain from purchasing any books from Oxford Univ. Press, Cambridge Univ. Press and Taylor & Francis Group until they withdraw their case.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned