I want summary of the below can anyone help me!!!
While the immediate beneficiaries of the Delhi high court’s judgment
in the Delhi University photocopy case are obviously the university,
the photocopy shop and the students and academics who filed
intervention petitions supporting the right to photocopy, the import of
Justice Endlaw’s finely reasoned judgment goes well beyond this
specific case as well as its impact on access to knowledge in India.
The judgment and its treatment of educational exceptions in
copyright law is unprecedented and could well become a model of
how national IP laws should be interpreted. To understand its global
significance we should turn to a short history of norm creation in
copyright and its relation to specific national and local needs.
The Berne convention in 1886 for the first time laid out uniform
global norms for copyright protection and established minimum
standards that would apply to all signatory states. This was concretised further through the TRIPS agreement in 1994. In
addition to laying out the common minimum standard that would
define the global intellectual property regime, these treaties also
allowed countries some amount of flexibility in customizing their
national legislation to respond to their access to knowledge needs.
These were by way of exceptions and limitations that a country
could impose on the exercise of intellectual property rights, and it in
this tricky terrain that many global IP battles have been fought. Both
the Berne convention and the TRIPS agreement allow for fair
dealing exceptions in national legislations, and in the case of the
Berne convention there is also a special exception allowed for
educational uses.
Since copyright is a system of balances, the judicial interpretation of
copyright disputes have also sought to create a balance between
competing claims and the ideological inclination of the courts reside
in the emphasis they give, either to the private interest or the public
interest dimension of copyright disputes. Thus in the United States
which is a copyright maximalist country, the courts have also
similarly displayed (with a few exceptions) a protectionist inclination.
Thus when confronted with issues such as the legal status of
photocopying, courts following the American model, have tend to
presume the prima facie legitimacy of the claim of copyright owners
and then go into questions of what the exceptions may allow.
Legally this translates into a discussion of what percentage of a
book may be copied for the purposes of a course. The underlying
logic is that the photocopy economy competes with that of the
original work and students will stop buying books, and the accepted
compromise is a licensing regime where collecting societies charge
a royalty fee for the use of academic material.
This was also more or less the argument that the petitioners ought
to make in the DU photocopy case and it would appear that the
choice before the high court in the present matter was to navigate
its way through these competing claims and arrive at a formula that
would set either a quantitative restriction on the amount that could
be copied or institute a licensing fee regime for the Indian context. Instead it chose to entirely dismiss the petitioner’s suit, so what
reasoning does it follow and how does it create a new jurisprudence
of access in copyright law.
In the present case the defendants tried to show that the quantum
reproduction of materials in the course pack was significantly low
ranging between 8 to 10% and the court could well have gone down
the safe route and agreed with their contention and found that there
indeed was no copyright infringement just based on quantity of use.
This would have been a matter of evidence, proof and counter proof
submitted by both parties. Instead the court in Para 22 frames the
issues as being one not of fact but of law and argues that the only
question to be adjudicated is whether the making of course-packs
amounts to infringement of copyright. “If the actions of the
defendant on an interpretation of law, are held to be infringement, a
decree for permanent injunction has to follow. Conversely if the
actions of defendant No.2 University are not found to be amounting
to infringement of copyright, the suit fail”.
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz