I am a student at a well-known law school. In my last trimester, I observed that senior students possess PDFs of numerous law books. I find this concerning from an ethical and legal standpoint. As future lawyers, shouldn't we uphold the principles of respecting intellectual property and refrain from piracy? I am contemplating writing to major publishers to bring attention to this issue. Would this be a prudent course of action?
It seems you must read the case. IP fair use principles clearly state that reproduction of content for educational use is allowed only if it is reasonable. Read section 52 (1) (h) of the Copyright Act which states, “the publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bona fide intended for instructional use, 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 such use in which copyright subsists.”
We can clearly see that only short passages of copyrighted material are permitted to be reproduced. How are entire PDFs of books short passages?
PS: I have written to over 5 publishers till now, and one has assured me that they will take action against infringement. One of the Gmail accounts operating a drive on which illegal material was stored has already been blocked.
Good for you. Well on your way to becoming a pariah in your law school already. The academic publishers already make a huge profit, especially considering that they barely pay any real royalty to the authors, no money to the reviewers and little money to the editors. You're not fighting for justice here, quite to the contrary.
So what if they have made huge profits? The law is still the law. If a poor person steals food from the pantry of a 5-star hotel, do we let him go just because the hotel earns a lot of profit and will not be materially affected by the theft?
Let me give you another example. Suppose you have a very old relative under your constant care. Suppose he does not pay any net taxes nor does he contribute to society in any way. Would killing him be justified?
No one can create a society where every person’s ‘basic’ needs are met. To use the food analogy, suppose we create a society whose sole aim is to ensure that everyone is well-fed. Suppose we have millions of inspectors who go around force-feeding anyone who is hungry. However, a determined criminal could still evade the inspectors and steal food.
I am not scared of people having a level playing ground. I even bought a copy of Taxmann's Company Law Manual for a friend who told me that he could not afford it right now. I understand that not everyone can afford to buy expensive books, but then shouldn’t those people borrow the books from the library? My law school’s library has 3 to 4 copies of nearly every law book imaginable.
Why bring in 52(1)(h) when the concerned section is 52(1)(i). Anything used in the course of instruction. The extent is not important, what's important is that it's used in the course of instruction.
Is there a chance that some of the people whom you've seen with these PDFs may have vision/print disabilities that aren't apparent/visible, meaning they might be using these PDFs for accessibility reasons?
I don’t believe in copyright law. I watch only pirated movies and use only pirated books. There are millions like me. That’s because we are middle class people and cannot afford it.
Highly unlikely. My law school has dedicated state-of-the-art devices for the visually impaired, and all the visually impaired students I know only use those.
We can clearly see that only short passages of copyrighted material are permitted to be reproduced. How are entire PDFs of books short passages?
PS: I have written to over 5 publishers till now, and one has assured me that they will take action against infringement. One of the Gmail accounts operating a drive on which illegal material was stored has already been blocked.
Let me give you another example. Suppose you have a very old relative under your constant care. Suppose he does not pay any net taxes nor does he contribute to society in any way. Would killing him be justified?
Re: old person liking analogy - reading a book is not the same as killing a person.
Your examples are not nearly as smart as they sound in your head.
Are you so scared of people having a level playing ground
The sub section you have quoted pertains to reproduction of published extracts in collections or compilations.
elbakyan stay safe