PaRCha - JNU - AISA chits - 2013 ID-14298
.
join an Open House Dr. Maninder Thakur, JNU.
Dr. G. Ajay, JNU.
Restrictions on Photocopying : Rajat Kumar,.
.
Who Is Afraid of Equal Access to Knowledge ?.
.
speakers High Court Lawyer in the ongoing case of DU.
.
27 April Tonight Usman Jawed,ASEAK.
Kaveri Mess 9.30pm Apoorva Gautam, ASEAK.
.
and other students and teach-.
.
A few days back, the JNU administration, following the totalitarian the goal of education have a value in themselves and cannot be.
and pro-commercialisation steps of the DU administration, reduced to the commercial interests of publishing houses..
"informally instructed" the photocopy shops in the campus to.
restrict photocopying of books and other study materials. After the Such restrictions on photocopying are no aberration, they are.
intervention of JNUSU, and the support from the progressive NOT isolated incidents. In fact, they are part of a general trend of.
sections of the JNU community, this move was thwarted at the promoting commercial and private interests in higher education.
AC meeting yesterday. The larger issues raised by such assaults in the name of "reforms". Rising fees, user charges, breakneck.
on free and accessible knowledge however remain. semesterisation of undergraduate courses in DU compromising.
course content and form despite stiff resistance by teachers and.
Who Gains from "Copyright" Restrictions? students, initiation of quasi-academic Meta University programmes,.
etc. are concrete examples of this change..
It is now common knowledge that three corporate publishing.
houses - Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge University Real Motive Behind the Lawsuit.
Press (CUP) and the Taylor and Francis Group - have filed a.
lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against the Rameshwari Photocopy The corporate publishers who have moved the current lawsuit in.
Services in the Delhi School of Economics. One needs to DU know full well that they do NOT have logic or even the law on.
understand who and what exactly is driving such "restrictions" their side. It appears, that the real reason for the lawsuit is that.
on the use of photocopied material by students. they want to establish a new regime, a new system under which.
institutions have to buy licenses for copying - similar to the.
Corporate publishing houses of course completely ignore the fact situation in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. A.
that photocopying remains the only available means for students body to issue licenses for copying has recently been floated with.
to access reading and research material at a time when books the name the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO),.
are prohibitively expensive and available only in limited numbers and publishers view the case in India as an opportunity to begin.
in university libraries. They claim, laughably, that photocopying signing universities up at a low cost. But there is no reason that.
is done for "commercial gain" and that their authors are losing prices will stay low. Publishers will hike them up in due course..
money as a result. And the moment people sign up, it becomes a compulsory license..
Even as the suit is pending and the legality of course packs are.
But academicians from all over the world refute the idea that being agitated before the court, for its part, the IRRO issued a.
the publishers are acting in their interests. The academicians, press release on 18 March 2013 stating that "any institution/.
invoking whose name the law suit was sought to be justified, organization/ individual and other who are photocopying,.
point out that photocopying by students is within the law, that scanning or digitally reproducing copyrighted material require.
it is not causing the publishers to lose money, that they want to ensure legal compliance". This is nothing short of a pernicious.
their works to be available as widely as possible, and that it attempt to coerce academic institutions into taking licenses, when.
is an essential part of education in a developing country like the law provides for a clear exception..
India. Last month, more than 300 academicians and authors - 33.
of whom were mentioned in the DU lawsuit, sent an open letter The question before us is simple. Where will JNU as an.
to their publishers demanding they reconsider their court action. institution stand in this crucial debate? With the teachers.
"The action is entirely to do with profit and nothing to do with and academics who are steadfastly REFUSING to let corporate.
the authors, whose living expenses are met by the publicly houses bully students by using their hard work and research? With.
funded university system, not piddling royalties", they said. It common students and photocopiers? Or with the likes of OUP.
is therefore clear who is benefitting from photocopying restrictions: and other corporate giants who care two hoots about affordable.
corporate publishing houses and NOT academicians, and of course education?.
certainly not photocopy shops and students!.
We invite the student community to participate in large numbers.
What does the law say? in an open house, `Restrictions on Photocopying: Who is.
Afraid of Equal Access to Knowledge?' in Kaveri mess at 9:30.
It should be noted that Sec. 52 (1) of the Indian Copyright Act allows pm tonight. Speakers include Dr. Maninder Thakur and Dr. G.
for "(h) the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic Ajay from JNU, Rajat Kumar (High Court Lawyer in the ongoing.
work- (i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or (ii) case of DU) and Usman Jawed and Apoorva Gautam from the.
as part of questions to be answered during examination; or (iii) Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge.
in answers to such questions". Further Sec. 52(1) (a) allows for (ASEAK), which was been formed out of the campaign in DU..
a fair dealing with any work (except computer programs) for the.
purposes of private or personal use, including research"..
.
It is therefore very much within the rights of the university and the Akbar Chawdhary,.
students to create "course packs" (as we have in DU as well as in Library Convenor,JNUSU.
JNU) and to access photocopies of academic texts and articles in.
the course of instruction and research. The Copyright Act in India.
does not lay down any quantitative restrictions when it comes.
to personal use or educational use even though such restrictions.
may operate for other kinds of usages. Legal safeguards such as.
these protect our democratic right to education and ensure that.
..
PaRCha - JNU - AISA chits - 2013 ID-14298
.
join an Open House Dr. Maninder Thakur, JNU.
Dr. G. Ajay, JNU.
Restrictions on Photocopying : Rajat Kumar,.
.
Who Is Afraid of Equal Access to Knowledge ?.
.
speakers High Court Lawyer in the ongoing case of DU.
.
27 April Tonight Usman Jawed,ASEAK.
Kaveri Mess 9.30pm Apoorva Gautam, ASEAK.
.
and other students and teach-.
.
A few days back, the JNU administration, following the totalitarian the goal of education have a value in themselves and cannot be.
and pro-commercialisation steps of the DU administration, reduced to the commercial interests of publishing houses..
"informally instructed" the photocopy shops in the campus to.
restrict photocopying of books and other study materials. After the Such restrictions on photocopying are no aberration, they are.
intervention of JNUSU, and the support from the progressive NOT isolated incidents. In fact, they are part of a general trend of.
sections of the JNU community, this move was thwarted at the promoting commercial and private interests in higher education.
AC meeting yesterday. The larger issues raised by such assaults in the name of "reforms". Rising fees, user charges, breakneck.
on free and accessible knowledge however remain. semesterisation of undergraduate courses in DU compromising.
course content and form despite stiff resistance by teachers and.
Who Gains from "Copyright" Restrictions? students, initiation of quasi-academic Meta University programmes,.
etc. are concrete examples of this change..
It is now common knowledge that three corporate publishing.
houses - Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge University Real Motive Behind the Lawsuit.
Press (CUP) and the Taylor and Francis Group - have filed a.
lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against the Rameshwari Photocopy The corporate publishers who have moved the current lawsuit in.
Services in the Delhi School of Economics. One needs to DU know full well that they do NOT have logic or even the law on.
understand who and what exactly is driving such "restrictions" their side. It appears, that the real reason for the lawsuit is that.
on the use of photocopied material by students. they want to establish a new regime, a new system under which.
institutions have to buy licenses for copying - similar to the.
Corporate publishing houses of course completely ignore the fact situation in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. A.
that photocopying remains the only available means for students body to issue licenses for copying has recently been floated with.
to access reading and research material at a time when books the name the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO),.
are prohibitively expensive and available only in limited numbers and publishers view the case in India as an opportunity to begin.
in university libraries. They claim, laughably, that photocopying signing universities up at a low cost. But there is no reason that.
is done for "commercial gain" and that their authors are losing prices will stay low. Publishers will hike them up in due course..
money as a result. And the moment people sign up, it becomes a compulsory license..
Even as the suit is pending and the legality of course packs are.
But academicians from all over the world refute the idea that being agitated before the court, for its part, the IRRO issued a.
the publishers are acting in their interests. The academicians, press release on 18 March 2013 stating that "any institution/.
invoking whose name the law suit was sought to be justified, organization/ individual and other who are photocopying,.
point out that photocopying by students is within the law, that scanning or digitally reproducing copyrighted material require.
it is not causing the publishers to lose money, that they want to ensure legal compliance". This is nothing short of a pernicious.
their works to be available as widely as possible, and that it attempt to coerce academic institutions into taking licenses, when.
is an essential part of education in a developing country like the law provides for a clear exception..
India. Last month, more than 300 academicians and authors - 33.
of whom were mentioned in the DU lawsuit, sent an open letter The question before us is simple. Where will JNU as an.
to their publishers demanding they reconsider their court action. institution stand in this crucial debate? With the teachers.
"The action is entirely to do with profit and nothing to do with and academics who are steadfastly REFUSING to let corporate.
the authors, whose living expenses are met by the publicly houses bully students by using their hard work and research? With.
funded university system, not piddling royalties", they said. It common students and photocopiers? Or with the likes of OUP.
is therefore clear who is benefitting from photocopying restrictions: and other corporate giants who care two hoots about affordable.
corporate publishing houses and NOT academicians, and of course education?.
certainly not photocopy shops and students!.
We invite the student community to participate in large numbers.
What does the law say? in an open house, `Restrictions on Photocopying: Who is.
Afraid of Equal Access to Knowledge?' in Kaveri mess at 9:30.
It should be noted that Sec. 52 (1) of the Indian Copyright Act allows pm tonight. Speakers include Dr. Maninder Thakur and Dr. G.
for "(h) the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic Ajay from JNU, Rajat Kumar (High Court Lawyer in the ongoing.
work- (i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or (ii) case of DU) and Usman Jawed and Apoorva Gautam from the.
as part of questions to be answered during examination; or (iii) Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge.
in answers to such questions". Further Sec. 52(1) (a) allows for (ASEAK), which was been formed out of the campaign in DU..
a fair dealing with any work (except computer programs) for the.
purposes of private or personal use, including research"..
.
It is therefore very much within the rights of the university and the Akbar Chawdhary,.
students to create "course packs" (as we have in DU as well as in Library Convenor,JNUSU.
JNU) and to access photocopies of academic texts and articles in.
the course of instruction and research. The Copyright Act in India.
does not lay down any quantitative restrictions when it comes.
to personal use or educational use even though such restrictions.
may operate for other kinds of usages. Legal safeguards such as.
these protect our democratic right to education and ensure that.
..