Talk:Delhi High Court restores copyright infringement case at Delhi University

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review of revision 4269271 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4269271 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Two sentences have come out oddly, and I'm, unfortunately, honestly unsure what is intended. I wonder if autocorrect was involved.
  • The bench restored the case and also the Rameshwari Photocopy service to sell its course packs which contained copyrighted material of the publications of Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor and Francis.
  • Course of essential for the students as availability, price and circulation of doing books was limited.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4269271 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Two sentences have come out oddly, and I'm, unfortunately, honestly unsure what is intended. I wonder if autocorrect was involved.
  • The bench restored the case and also the Rameshwari Photocopy service to sell its course packs which contained copyrighted material of the publications of Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor and Francis.
  • Course of essential for the students as availability, price and circulation of doing books was limited.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Missing word, incorrect grammar and autocorrect. Fixed.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4269413 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4269413 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • As I understand this case, it turns on the provision in the law that use for instruction is not infringement. The triable issue is then whether that is in fact the sole purpose of the course pack. I think. I could see an article explaining this — with great care to avoid analysis, so yes it would be tricky — relatively high in the inverted pyramid. I attempted to clarify this point without exceeding my role as reviewer by insertion of the words "instructional use" in the past paragraph; anything more detailed would likely fall outside reviewer's purview.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4269413 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • As I understand this case, it turns on the provision in the law that use for instruction is not infringement. The triable issue is then whether that is in fact the sole purpose of the course pack. I think. I could see an article explaining this — with great care to avoid analysis, so yes it would be tricky — relatively high in the inverted pyramid. I attempted to clarify this point without exceeding my role as reviewer by insertion of the words "instructional use" in the past paragraph; anything more detailed would likely fall outside reviewer's purview.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Section 52 of the Copyright Act
Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.—

(b) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purpose of reporting current events—
(i) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical
(c) the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purpose of a judicial proceeding or for the purpose of a report of a judicial proceeding;

(d) the reproduction or publication of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in any work prepared by the Secretariat of a Legislature or, where the Legislature consists of two Houses, by the Secretariat of either House of the Legislature, exclusively for the use of the members of that Legislature;

(e) the reproduction of any literary, dramatic or musical work in a certified copy made or supplied in accordance with any law for the time being in force;

(g) the publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bona fide intended for the use of educational institutions, and so described in the title and in any advertisement issued by or on behalf of the publisher, of short passages from published literary or dramatic works, not themselves published for the use of educational institutions, in which copyright subsists: Provided that not more than two such passages from works by the same author are published by the same publisher during any period of five years.

(i) the performance, in the course of the activities of an educational institution, of a literary, dramatic or musical work by the staff and student of the institution, or of a cinematograph film or a 6[sound recording], if the audience is limited to such staff and students, the parents and guardians of the students and persons directly connected with the activities of the institution 7[or the communication to such an audience of a cinematograph film or sound recording]

(m) the reproduction in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical of an article on current economic, political, social or religious topics, unless the author of such article has expressly reserved to himself the right of such reproduction;

(o) the making of not more than three copies of a book (including a pamphlet, sheet of music, map, chart or plan) by or under the direction of the person in charge of a public library for the use of the library if such book is not available for sale in India;

(p) the reproduction, for the purpose of research or private study, or with a view to publication, of an unpublished literary, dramatic or musical works kept in a library, museum or other institution to which the public has access: Provided that where the identity of the author of any such work or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, of any of the authors is known to the library, museum or other institution, as the case may be, the provisions of this clause shall apply only if such reproduction is made at a time more than 9[sixty years] from the date of the death of the author or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, from the death of the author whose identity is known or, if the identity of more authors than one is known from the death of such of those authors who died last;


The debate arises when the student reproduces the book for educational purposes or someone *selling* the copyrighted material and covering the act in the name of educational purpose.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The specific provision cited in the dismissal was, iirc, "(i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction". --Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been the case if the student walks into the shop, asks them to photocopy certain pages of the book (which he/she might have borrowed from the library) and obtains the copy. But, it is the shop who is distributing the course pack here.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 16:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is getting into analysis, which should be on the opinions page. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

{{editprotected}} "The charges...was dismissed" should be "were dismissed". Heavy Water (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done --SVTCobra 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delhi_High_Court_restores_copyright_infringement_case_at_Delhi_University&oldid=4764843"