Standing Committees recommendations are at odds with Access to Knowledge

Last week, the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce (Committee) tabled its review of the IPR regime in India. The Committee had initiated work in October, 2020, and during the process consulted with law firms, industry associations, and government departments.

The Committee agreed with the contention of the stakeholders that limitationsand exceptions contained in section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 werehaving a detrimental impact on the publishing industry and authors. In addition, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) also presented its “corrective measures” to narrow down section 52(1)(i) of theCopyright Act – the copyright exception that had been the bone of contention inthe DU photocopying case. They included 1) permitting only the making of printcopies of literary works which are available in libraries at government-ownededucational institutions, to “avoid any commercial gains from the work ofpublishers”; 2) quantitatively restricting the reproduction (in cases of books)to ten percent of the total number of pages of the book; and alarmingly also 3)barring the storage of material in the form of scanned or digital formats.

• Permitting the copying of works only in government-owned educational institutions and storing it in librariesfor easy access to students;
• Imposinglimitations on unrestricted copying of books and literary works and storage of copiedworks in digital formats;
• Promotion ofestablishing of community libraries and upgrading existing libraries in the countryfor easy access to works of foreign publishers which are exorbitantly pricedand difficult to access;
• NationalMission on Library, a venture of Central Government to strengthen the librarysystem, should be implemented at the earliest;
• DPIITto undertake a study of the Berne Convention to inform the copyright regime,and the Berne Convention should be referred to in matters of limitations andexceptions in the country.

Separately,the report also makes certain recommendations in respect of registration ofcopyright societies and treating internet/ digital streaming platforms as broadcastersfor purposes of section 31D license.

The recommendations to narrow copyright exceptions and limit digital uses of works are very concerning. It appears that the recommendations shift the financial burden of ensuring access to educational material on public libraries, yet at the same time, restrict the permissible uses of works in libraries.

Since2020, both government and Parliament have conducted separate consultations onthe IPR regime without hearing all stakeholders. In the case of the consultationexercise initiated by DPIIT, details still have not been made public. In theParliament’s case, it is concerning that key stakeholders and beneficiaries on education and research such as institutions, libraries, teachers, researchers etc. have not been consulted. Neither the substantive part nor the minutes discuss any research or evidence on the issues. As noted byProf. Scaria, this is hardly a balanced exercise and the report is nowhereclose to the level of rigor and depth expected from a Parliamentary StandingCommittee.