Manshing is running a photocopy shop which was established in the year 1997 in the name and style of Maheswari Photocopy Services (defendant in this case). The said shop is located at the premises of Indian Institute of

Answer 2(a) In this case both Indian Institute of Technology and Maheswari Photocopy Services were sued for the infringement of Copy Rights in the year 2012 by Oxford University Press Cambridge University Press (UK), Taylor & Francis Group (UK), Cambridge University Press India Ltd and Taylor & Francis Books India P. Ltd. for distributing copies of their published books without proper authorization. The Plaintiffs instituted this suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the two defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in their publication by photocopying reproduction and distribution of copies of plaintiffs' publication on a large scale and circulating the same and by sale of unauthorized compilations of substantial extracts from the plaintiffs publications by compiling them into course packs/anthologies for sale. Maheswari Photocopy Services received a lot of support from academics, activists, and students alike in response to the law suit and several petitions were submitted to be impleaded as defendants including the Society for Promoting Educational Access and knowledge (SPEAK) and the Association of students for Equal Access to knowledge (ASEAK). In 2012 a temporary injunction prohibiting Maheswari Photocopy Services from selling the cloned course packages was issued by the Delhi High Court. Additionally the Court ordered a Local Commissioner to visit the shop's location without warning and seize any allegedly infringing copies of the plaintiffs works that were produced thereafter after making on inventory of them. The law suit was dismissed in 2016 and lifted the injunction, allowing Maheswari Photocopy Services to resume selling the course bundles. In that year a two judges bench overturned the earlier ruling and permitted the case trial to proceed, ruling that copyright laws are meant to balance public and private interests but in recent years, the public interest has been eroded due to lobbying. In Delhi University Photocopy case, the Court held that Copyright specially in literary work is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creation. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Exceptions within the law make provisions for the copying of chapters within books for the purpose of education. Section 52(1)(a), the 'fair use' exception, allows any fair dealing with a copyrighted work - literary, dramatic, musical or artistic - for the purpose of research and private study. Section 52(2) (i) allows the reproduction of any copyrighted work, during the course of education instruction. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public. It is hereby concluded that the action of the defendant No 2 Educational Institution making a master photocopy of the relevant portion (prescribed in the syllabus) of the books of the plaintiffs purchased by defendant No.2 Educational Institution and kept in its library and making further photocopies does not tantamount to copyright violation. Under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 Section 52(1) (a) allows any fair use and dealing with a copyrighted matters like in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Such fair use, dealing and practice allows the scholars and pupils to make a Xerox copy of the required data from the books for the purpose of research and private study which are not easily available to general public or are that expensive in monetary aspect that just could not be purchased by middle class or a normal class people. In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. case Stephanie Lenz has uploaded a video of her child dancing on the song LET'S GO CRAZY on Youtube. Universal Music Corp. sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claiming that Lenz's video violated their copyright in the 'Let's Go Crazy' song. Lenz claimed fair use of the copyrighted material and sued Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. In a decision rejecting a motion to dismiss the claim, the district court held that Universal must consider fair use when filing a takedown notice, but noted that to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder. Section 52(1) (1) defines the exception of infringement of copyrighted materials where there is a reproduction of any literary, dramatic, musical or of any artistic work by : By any teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, As part of the question to be answered in an examination In answers to such questions. The word 'instruction' in section 52 (1) (i) do not confine in a lecture room or classroom, thus the scope of this provision is not limited to reproduction of a work by a teacher in the course of a lecture but also includes reproduction for the purpose of making and issuing course packs. The term 'teacher' in Section 52 (1) (i) is not limited to an individual teacher but includes the whole educational institution. Copyright is a statutory right granted under the Copyright Act of 1957 and photocopying fragments from books and making it available to the students enrolled in university, clearly for educational purpose, did not amount to copyright infringement. The 'course packs' photocopied by the Service shop has immunity against the statutory right as an exception stated under Section 52. The court also held that 'reproduce the work' u/section-14(a) (i) includes photocopy as well. Thus the supply of copies enjoys immunity. Copyright, especially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that copyright 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. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public. The photocopied course packs did not affect the market of the Copyrighted material as it was freely available in the Library of the university for the use of the students. Therefore the books did not face any competition. The purpose of copyright infringement outweighs the infringement itself. The test of fairness is qualitative and not quantitative. The course pack is provided only to the students with Universities ID and not to the general public. It did not count to be a copyright infringement because the book is made available to the students through library, which make them accessible to the copyrighted material and make copies of it for academic use without infringing copyright protection. Analysis of The Judgement. The judgement that circle arounds the Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, permitting the reproduction of works through copying or photocopying as well for educational and academic purpose only is held legal. The doctrine of Fair dealing, gives an exhaustive approach and anything not falling under that would directly amount to copyright infringement. The statutory interpretation of the case arises questions on how to determine the threshold of Fair dealing and if providing limitless use under this doctrine still keep the intention a bona fide one and not change to mala fide ? Analysing this question the court completely deviated from the universal four factor test of Fair use and constructed another one for itself. The determinants used while testing the threshold of Fair Dealing are: purpose, nature, percentage of work and its effect on the market. The new interpretation of this doctrine narrowed down the protection granted under the copyright which can be easily override limitless under the veil of educational purposes. The academics including the teachers or professors to students are given the limitless power to use the copyrighted material without any limitation and to any extend until it serves the purpose. The new balance of rights and exception in this judgement sounds absurd for various reasons. The limitless use of copyrighted material seems like a very grey area to decide where the learning use actually ends. Furthermore this interpretation makes very hard to understand the difference of bona fide and mala fide fair use of the copyrighted works. The undefined line between this right and exception makes the purpose of copyright protection ab initio. The fact that the very protection does exists but is subsequently suspended against the right of fair users. The judges proposes the absence of absolute copyright protection and that this protection is merely a statutory right. Implying there's no infringement as the right is not absolute.