At what point are the rights of the public more important than the privileges of a copyright holder?
In this unprecedented age of information, the question has never been more relevant, or important. We need only look at such tragic figures as Aaron Swartz, who killed himself rather than face 50 years in jail for distributing academic journals free of charge, to see how serious the stakes have become between those who control information, and the factions that believe all knowledge should be free to all who desire it.
Late last week, the battle reached a major milestone when the Delhi high court declared a photocopy kiosk on the campus of Delhi University could continue copying entire textbooks for students, rather than requiring them to purchase an original version.
The verdict marks the end of a four year ordeal, in which five major publishing houses – including Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis – alleged that the practice was a violation of copyright, and resulting in significant financial losses.
“Copyright, especially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public,” wrote the Chief Justice in a 94-page order announcing the decision.
Justified by section 52 of the Copyright Act, an international law that deems education exempt from copyright infringement, such a verdict could have major international consequences. Today, Australian tertiary students often spend $600 – $1600 annually on textbooks (though publishers vehemently refute these figures) ; significantly less than in the previous decade, but only thanks to student-run networks for the selling of second hand books, and websites like Scribd that host scans of popular publications.
It’s a huge victory for students, and for organisations like The National Union of Students, who have been championing the need to reduce the cost of textbooks for students often already living on a pittance, but what will it mean for the publishers? It makes sense to say the business model needs to change, but when the competition is a free version of their own books, it’s difficult to imagine how that will be possible.
Also of interest is the fact that the kiosk at Delhi University is allowed to charge a service fee for photocopying, meaning that it makes a profit by subverting the publisher.
Regardless of the decision, the high court has delivered a verdict, but not a solution. The question of legality has been answered, but not that which surrounds the ethics of the issue. Something needs to give.