In the light of the recent US copyright case revolving around the free e- lending facility of Internet Archive, what should be the limits on ‘fair use’ of copyrighted works by students and academicians?

INTRODUCTION

Contextual Background

"Access to information," Tushnet asserts, "is not simply a means to some other end, but rather an end in itself that deserves protection."1 This perspective is particularly significant in our current digital landscape, where information is plentiful yet often closely monitored, frequently situated at the crossroads of knowledge and commercial interests. Recent disputes, such as the legal case surrounding the Internet Archive's digital lending practices, highlight this conflict and raise an essential question: Can copyright law adapt to facilitate open access to information while still respecting the rights of creators?

For educational institutions, libraries, and nonprofit organizations, the principle of fair use has historically provided a pathway to enhance the accessibility of knowledge, particularly for those dependent on digital resources for education and research. However, as copyright owners increasingly challenge the Internet Archive’s controlled digital lending practices, the limits of fair use are being tested in ways that could significantly alter how students, researchers, and academics obtain information in the future.

Origin Of Doctrine of Fair Use

The concept of copyright limitations and exceptions have long roots in international agreements, particularly the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886. This foundational treaty sought to standardize copyright practices across nations while allowing for adaptability to the distinct social and cultural circumstances of individual countries. The recommendations regarding copyright limitations in the Berne Convention were primarily advisory, granting member states considerable freedom in how they interpret and implement its rules. The Berne Convention introduced principles for fair use that endure today. The Article 9(2) of the convention permits the reproduction of copyrighted works in "certain special cases," provided such use does not interfere with normal exploitation or harm the

1 Rebecca Tushnet, “Copy This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It” 114 Yale L.J. 535, 537, 562-86 (2004)

<https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Tushnet%20Fair%20Use%20Abridged.pdf>

legitimate interests of the author. Article 10 explicitly allows the use of copyrighted works for teaching and illustration, as long as such use is justified by purpose, adheres to fair practice, and attributes the author if their name appears on the work2. Yet, despite the Berne Convention’s efforts, nations continued to diverge in their approaches to intellectual property rights (IPR), leading to a lack of uniformity and consistency thus creating challenges in a technology driven world.

The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement aimed to harmonize IPR standards by establishing minimum requirements for member countries, while still allowing flexibility in specific areas. Article 9 of TRIPS (often referred to as “Berne Plus”) integrated the Berne Convention’s principles, mandating that member states comply with key provisions of Berne. Article 13 further refined the scope of limitations and exceptions, stating that exceptions should only be applied in special cases that do not interfere with the normal exploitation of a work or unduly harm the rights holder's interests.3 The WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 later reinforced these principles, establishing what is now known as the three- step test for copyright exceptions, namely:

(i) existence of certain special cases (ii) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the copyright material and (iii) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder4:

The Max Planck Declaration5 has recently emphasized the need for these three steps to be interpreted as a cohesive framework, balancing economic rights with the fundamental freedom of access to knowledge.

However, the interpretation of what constitutes "prejudice" or "reasonableness" leaves considerable room for national discretion, a factor now central in the case concerning the Internet Archive's digital lending practices.

The Core Issue: Understanding the Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) Mechanism

2 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, art. 9(2) and art. 10

3 The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, 1994, art. 9 and art. 13.

4 The Three-Step Test, Electronic Frontier Foundation, <https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/three- step_test_fnl.pdf> (visited on November 13, 2024)

5 Max Planck deceleration

<https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung_aktuell/01_balanced/declaration_three_step_test_fi nal_englisp.pdf >

Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) represents a modern and contentious approach to library lending in the digital age. This practice allows libraries to digitize physical copies of books they legally own and lend them in a controlled digital format6. CDL provides libraries with a way to adapt to the growing demand for digital access, particularly beneficial for students, researchers, and remote learners. However, it operates within strict limitations to avoid undermining copyright holders’ rights.

At the core of CDL is the “owned-to-loan” ratio, which is designed to balance fair access to knowledge with copyright protections. According to this principle, libraries can only lend a digital copy of a book if they have a corresponding physical copy in their collection. For each e-copy available for checkout, the corresponding number of print copies must be removed from circulation. For example, if a library has five physical copies, it could lend five e-copies while keeping the physical copies unavailable, or any other combination that respects the number of physical books owned. This approach ensures that digital lending does not exceed the library’s legally acquired holdings7.

To further safeguard the rights of copyright holders, CDL requires libraries to implement digital rights management (DRM) infrastructure. This prevents users from copying or redistributing digital files and adheres to the “one-copy, one-user” model, ensuring that each e-copy is lent out individually, just as physical copies would be. CDL’s core principles, therefore, include three essential conditions:

Ownership of a Copy: Libraries must own a copy of the book, either through purchase, donation, or gift.

Maintaining the Owned-to-Loan Ratio: Only as many digital copies can be lent out as the number of copies are owned.

Implementation of DRM: Technical measures are required to control the access and prevent unauthorized copying or sharing.8

6 Michelle M Wu, “Revisiting Controlled Digital Lending Post-ReDigi” (2019)

< https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3152&context=facpub>

7 Ibid.

8 Controlled Digital Lending – SPARC. <https://sparcopen.org/our-work/controlled-digital-lending/> (Visited on November 12th,2024)

Despite its structured approach, CDL has been met with significant challenges. Digital and “shadow” libraries have often been scrutinized for pushing the boundaries of public benefit against copyright protection.

Analysis of the Judgment

Background of the Case

The case Hachette Book Group, inc. v. Internet Archive9 centres around the legality of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL), a practice adopted by the Internet Archive, a non-profit digital library. The lawsuit was filed by four major publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House against the Internet Archive. The plaintiffs alleged that the Archive’s practice of scanning and lending out their copyrighted works without authorization was a direct violation of copyright law, depriving them of potential sales and licensing revenues of books, thus incurring financial harm to them.

The Internet Archive’s defence relied on the claim that its lending practices were covered under the "fair use" exception of copyright law. According to the Archive, it adhered to a strict "owned-to-loan" ratio as in it only digitized and lent out the same number of digital copies as the physical copies it owned. This system ensured that the digital copies were lent out one at a time, in line with traditional library lending practices, which do not constitute infringement. Additionally, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Archive launched the “National Emergency Library,” temporarily lifting the owned-to-loan ratio to provide greater access during the widespread closure of libraries. During the NEL period, more than 1.4 million titles were made available for online lending, and users could borrow books without being restricted by the typical one-to-one ratio. The suspension of the owned-to-loan rule resulted in significant numbers of users borrowing the same digital copy of a book at once, raising concerns from the publishers about potential market harm and thus making the crux of the issue.

The plaintiffs contended that the Internet Archive’s practices both the long-standing Open Library project and the temporary NEL represented large-scale infringement of copyright. They argued that the Archive’s distribution of their books without licensing or compensation would result in a loss of sales, as readers might opt to borrow books from the Archive instead of purchasing them or licensing them through traditional retail or library systems. Moreover, they expressed concerns that the Archive's digital lending practices would establish a dangerous

9 Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive (S.D.N.Y. 2023) 664 F. Supp. 3d 370

precedent for other organizations to similarly violate copyright by exploiting the fair use exception.

The legal issue in the case ultimately boiled down to whether the Internet Archive’s digital lending practices, especially those under the National Emergency Library, could be classified as fair use or whether they infringed on the copyright holders’ exclusive rights.

Application of the Four-Factor Fair Use Test

In the United States, the legislation itself provides the following four criteria for determining ‘fair use':

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

the effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.10

In the Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive case, the court’s analysis was based on these established criteria, each of which weighed heavily against the Internet Archive's practice of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL).

The first factor the purpose and character of the use is crucial in determining whether the use is transformative or simply a repackaging of the original work. The court found that the Internet Archive’s conversion of physical books into digital copies did not qualify as transformative. According to the court, transformative use occurs when a work adds new expression, meaning, or utility, or serves a different purpose than the original. The Internet Archive’s use, however, was seen as no more than a repackaging of the print versions into digital format, without adding any new commentary or criticism, which is a key component for a finding of fair use11. While the Internet Archive’s mission was non-profit, its activities nevertheless involved certain commercial aspects, such as the sale of books via affiliate links through Better World Books. These links generated revenue for the Archive, thus undermining its claim to purely educational

10 17 US Code Section 107

11 Capital Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. (2d Cir 2018), 910 F.3d 649 at 660, Fox News Network, LLC v. Tveyes, Inc. (2d Cir 2018), 883 F.3d 169 at 176

or non-commercial intent. The court concluded that this commercial element tipped the balance in favour of the publishers, as it demonstrated that the Internet Archive was profiting from the exploitation of the copyrighted works, even if not directly charging users. The court stressed that this commercial benefit, despite the non-profit status of the Archive, was sufficient to favour the publishers on this factor.12

The second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, weighs the extent to which the work is factual or creative. In this case, the works in question were predominantly creative, comprising both fiction and non-fiction, which are at the core of copyright protection. The court was unpersuaded by the Internet Archive’s argument that the age of the works (some of which had been published for over five years) should favour their use. The fact that the works had been published did not diminish their copyright protection, and the court pointed out that fair use does not automatically apply merely because a work has been published for a certain amount of time.13 Thus the court favoured the publishers, as the works were creative and central to the core of copyright protection, further underscoring the need to protect the authors' and publishers’ rights.

The third factor the amount and substantiality of the portion used is concerned with how much of the original work was copied and whether this amount is reasonable in relation to the purpose of the use. The court found that the Internet Archive’s practice involved the wholesale copying of entire books, which it then made available for lending. It was noted by the court that the fair use principle is more in favour of the smaller works. The court reiterated that such wholesale copying, absent a transformative purpose, tends to disfavour fair use. The Internet Archive did not limit its use to the amount necessary for any educational purpose, and this broad copying was deemed excessive and unnecessary for the Archive's mission. As a result, this factor weighed heavily against the Internet Archive, with the court noting that more limited use such as providing excerpts would have sufficed for educational or research purposes.

Finally, the fourth factor the effect on the market for or value of the copyrighted work— examines the economic impact of the use on the original work’s market. This factor is particularly important when assessing whether the secondary use competes with the market for the original work, potentially displacing sales or licensing opportunities. The court found that the Internet Archive’s lending practice directly harmed the publishers’ market. By providing

12 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, (1985), 105 S. Ct. 2218 at 2231

13 Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v ComicMix LLC, (9th Cir 2020), 983 F.3d 443 at 456

free access to digital copies of books, the Archive undermined the market for licensed e-books, particularly when it made copies available to libraries that would otherwise have to purchase licenses. The availability of these digital books could diminish demand for the original print or licensed e-books, as libraries and individual users might opt for the free alternative, leading to lost sales for the publishers. It was also noted that the usage of the books by re publishing is in violation of the original writer and Publisher. The court further emphasized the risk of “expanded future displacement” if similar practices were adopted by other organizations, further undercutting the publishers’ ability to profit from their works. This factor, therefore, strongly favoured the publishers, as the Internet Archive’s practices were found to present a significant threat to their market.

IA’s primary defence was the first sale doctrine14, contending that the owners of physical copies should be allowed to reproduce and lend their books freely. IA cited Doan v. American Book Co. 15 to substantiate, but the court found it unhelpful as it only allowed reproduction of book covers, not entire works. The court also referenced ReDigi16, where it was made clear that the first sale doctrine, as codified in Section 109(a), does not extend to reproduction rights. The court rejected IA’s broad interpretation of the doctrine, reinforcing that it only applies to physical copies and not to digital reproductions. This further strengthened the court’s decision that IA’s practices infringed on copyright holders' rights.

The court found that the Internet Archive's practices did not meet the criteria for fair use, ruling in favour of the publishers. The court rejected the primary defence of the first sale doctrine, emphasizing that it does not extend to digital reproductions. The Archive’s commercial activities, the wholesale copying of works, and the negative impact on the market for original works all contributed to the court’s decision. Ultimately, the court reinforced the importance of protecting the copyright holders' rights and the financial interests of the publishing industry.

Stance in Other Jurisdictions:

The Hachette case reflects a U.S.-centric interpretation of copyright law, which contrasts sharply with the approaches in other jurisdictions, particularly the U.K. and India. Both countries operate under the doctrine of "fair dealing," which is more defined and statutory than

14 17 US Code Sec. 109

15 Doan et al v. American Book Co, 105 F. 772, (7th Cir. 1901)

16 Capitol Recs., LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649, 660 (2d Cir. 2018)

the U.S. system of "fair use." In these regions, specific exceptions to copyright infringement are clearly outlined, especially for educational, research, and library uses.

In the U.K., for instance, a commission in the early 2000s advocated for broad exemptions for educational purposes in developing countries, recognizing the importance of intellectual property in fostering social and economic development17. This contrasts with the stance taken in the Hachette case, where the commercial interests of publishers were prioritized over the broader societal benefits

In the European Union, the approach to digital lending by libraries is notably different. A landmark case in the Netherlands, brought before the EU Court of Justice18, addressed whether a digital copy of a lawfully acquired book could be lent to library patrons. The Court ruled that such digital lending is permissible, marking a significant shift towards accommodating digital advancements within copyright law. The Opinion of the Advocate General in the EU Court of Justice19 in this case argued strongly (and successfully) for preserving and enhancing the role of libraries in the European Union:

“Libraries are one of civilization's most ancient institutions, predating by several centuries the invention of paper and the emergence of books as we know them today. In the 15th century, they successfully adapted to, and benefited from, the invention of printing and it was to the libraries that the law of copyright, which emerged in the 18th century, had to adjust. Today we are witnessing a new, digital revolution, and one may wonder whether libraries will be able to survive this new shift in circumstances. Without wishing to overstate its importance, the present case undeniably offers the Court a real opportunity to help libraries not only to survive, but also to flourish.”

This ruling was based on an understanding of how libraries' roles have changed in the digital era, highlighting both their ongoing importance and the necessity for copyright laws to keep up with new developments.

Lord Denning’s view on fair dealing emphasizes that it is not always easy to define what is fair. It depends on how much of the copyrighted material is used and for what purpose. If the material is used for commentary, criticism, or review, it is more likely to be considered fair.

17 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (2002).

18 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v. Stiching Leenrecht, (November 16, 2016), European Union Court of Justice (Third Chamber), C-174/15

19 Ibid. Opinion of Advocate General

However, if the material is used to simply replace the original work or for a different purpose, it may not be fair. The key factors include the amount of material used and the context in which it is used. Ultimately, the decision on fairness depends on the specific circumstances and judgment of the case20.

This nuanced perspective on fair dealing emphasizes proportionality, purpose, and context, providing a more flexible framework than the U.S. model of fair use.

The Doctrine of Fair Use in India

An Indian Perspective on Transformative Use

When examining the Hachette judgment through the lens of Indian copyright law, a fundamental difference lies in the broader conceptualization of transformative use in India. Unlike the narrow perspective focused solely on the creative act and the originality of the work, Indian law acknowledges transformation as a critical mechanism for ensuring access and equity. This approach is evident in the expansive exceptions embedded in Indian copyright law, encompassing personal use, disability access, education, and library purposes. These provisions allow for controlled digitization and lending practices, aligning with the principles of fairness and inclusivity.

Amartya Sen’s seminal concept of “development as freedom” resonates deeply with this philosophy. Sen argued that “unfreedom” stems from a lack of opportunities and that equitable access to resources, including education and knowledge, is integral to distributive justice. His notion of “social opportunities” as enablers of both private and political freedoms aptly illustrates the necessity of the right to read and communicate in fostering inclusive development. In this context, India’s copyright framework, with its emphasis on exceptions and limitations, aligns with the principles of justice and equity championed by Sen21.

This inclusive ethos finds historical roots in parliamentary debates on the Copyright Act of 1956. Kishen Chand, a member of the Rajya Sabha, made a compelling case for rethinking copyright as a system not only to incentivize creativity but also to promote societal welfare. Chand emphasized that copyright should serve the interests of society, particularly the reading public. He asserted:

20 Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84

21 Amartya Sen, Development as freedom, New York: Knopf, 1999

“In the interests of society, in the interests of the reading public and also in the interests of the public which enjoys works of art and music, the copyright period should have a maximum period prescribed to it.”22

Recognizing the economic barriers to education and access to books, Chand passionately argued:

“When our country is going to have compulsory education and adult education and the literary public is going to increase in large numbers, it is very essential that we try to bring down the prices of books and restrict the profits of the authors… In a poor country where the spread of education is very essential, where the teacher is very poorly paid… to make books dear by this Copyright Bill… is not a right step; it is not a step in the right direction.”

M. Satyanarayan added during the Parliamentary debates that intellectual property inherently belongs to society, as society enables its creation:

“Whatever is produced—whether it may be intellectual property or spiritual property or material property—it belongs to the society… The consumer class should have been taken into consideration.”23

This vision was also shared by other parliamentarians in debates held later on. Girdhari Lal Bhargava highlighted the primacy of readers' interests, stating:

“To me, it seems that the interest of the readers is to be the primary concern of the Government.”24

These debates demonstrate a forward-looking understanding of the role of copyright in ensuring affordable access to knowledge and education. The lawmakers anticipated many of the challenges faced today, such as the tension between intellectual property rights and equitable access in a rapidly digitizing world.

22 Rajya Sabha Debate, February 16, 1956, pp. 75-77

<https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/578571/1/PD_12_16021956_2_p61_p103_5.pdf>

23 Rajya Sabha Debate, May 14th and 15th, 1957, pp. 303, 304, 306.

<https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/574565/1/PD_17_15051957_3_p189_p316_7.pdf>

24 Lok Sabha Debate, March 17, 1992, 988.

<https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/3785/1/lsd_10_3rd_17-03-1992.pdf>

Degree of Fairness

The degree of fairness in copyright law is determined by a nuanced interplay between the rights of creators and the broader societal interests in access to knowledge. At its core, fair use or fair dealing strives to ensure that copyright law does not become an instrument for stifling creativity, research, or education. While the concept of fairness can appear subjective, its application has evolved through statutory provisions and judicial interpretation, emphasizing equitable access, especially in contexts like education and research25.

The concept of fairness is often tied to the purpose of use, with exceptions provided for educational, research, or non-commercial purposes. Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act embodies this balance, providing specific exemptions that cater to the unique challenges faced by Indian educational and research institutions26. Courts in India have recognized the need to interpret these provisions flexibly, keeping in mind the socio-economic realities of the country. For instance, in the Delhi University Case27, the Delhi High Court observed the vital role photocopying played in bridging the gap between the demand for educational resources and their availability in an economically constrained environment. For students and educators, the case raised fundamental questions about equitable access to learning materials in the Indian educational landscape.

Justice Endlaw emphasized the infrastructure limitations of Indian universities, arguing that prohibiting photocopying would unduly disadvantage students, who often cannot afford to purchase all required books. The cost of purchasing the full set of books for a specific course pack in this case would have amounted to approximately $1,700—more than the average GDP per capita in India at the time. A reprographic license fee which is essentially the envisaged license fee proposed by the publishers, would have doubled the price of photocopying from 0.5 cents to 1 rupee per page, would have made these materials even more financially inaccessible. Acknowledging these challenges, the court rejected efforts to apply a rigid doctrinal framework, such as the four-factor test used in the United States, choosing instead to base its interpretation on the practical realities of Indian educational institutions28.

25 Lawrence Liang and Carl Malamud, “Controlled Lending by Public Libraries Under Indian Law”, (2023)

<https://archive.org/details/Controlled.Lending.India>

26 Indian Copyright Act, 1957 s. 52

27 The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of The University of Oxford & Ors v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr. 2016 68 PTC 386 (Del)

28 Ibid.

Judicial decisions have often explored the degree of fairness in cases where the use of copyrighted material was contested. The court in Super Cassettes Industries Limited & Ors. v. Chintamani Rao & Ors.29 emphasized that fair dealing must involve intellectual engagement and original mental exercise, ensuring that copied content serves a legitimate purpose, such as criticism, review, or research.

The legislative intent of fair dealing also reflects a concern for distributive justice, particularly in contexts where equitable access to knowledge is essential. The Delhi University Photocopy Case30 stands out as a judgment that recognized how copyright law, if applied rigidly, could deepen existing inequities. Justice Endlaw pointed out that access to knowledge fosters long- term societal benefits, arguing that increased literacy and earning potential would expand the market for copyrighted materials in the long run.

Research and the Boundaries of Fair Dealing in Copyright Law

The role of research within the framework of fair dealing and the degree of fairness involves a critical analysis of how copyright law facilitates or impedes the pursuit of knowledge. Research, as interpreted under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, is central to understanding the scope of fairness in copyright usage. While the Act does not explicitly define "research," insights can be drawn from Section 32, which outlines provisions related to compulsory licensing31. This section clarifies that research for educational purposes includes instructional activities at all levels in institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities, as well as other organized educational activities. However, research for industrial or commercial purposes is excluded from this ambit, reflecting the intention to differentiate between public- interest-driven research and profit-oriented use.

Judicial interpretations of research further refine this distinction. In Blackwood v. Parasuram32 the court clarified that private study, a form of personal research, does not encompass activities such as publication or widespread circulation. The court emphasized that copying for personal use remains within the boundaries of fairness, while creating derivative works, such as guidebooks summarizing and reproducing significant portions of copyrighted content, does not qualify as research. The court defined research as an "investigation directed to the discovery of some fact by careful study of a subject," which

29 Super Cassettes Industries Limited & Ors. v. Chintamani Rao & Ors/2006., 2282

30 Supra Note at 24

31 Supra Note at 23.s. 32

32 Blackwood and Sons Ltd. v. A.N. Parasuraman, AIR 1959 Mad 410.

underscores the intellectual and non-commercial nature of activities protected under fair dealing.

For students and academicians, the provision of research plays a crucial role, and the boundaries of what constitutes "fair dealing" are often tested in situations where materials are used for educational purposes. Research in this context refers to the use of copyrighted materials for critical academic work, including assignments, theses, and scholarly articles. For students, fair dealing generally encompasses the right to copy parts of works for personal study, provided this is not for profit. This often means copying chapters or sections of textbooks for assignments or examinations, something that is an everyday practice for many students in India, where access to books is severely limited.

In the case of academicians, research extends beyond mere personal study to include the use of materials for publishing, teaching, and further academic inquiry. The fair dealing exception outlined in Section 52 is crucial, as it permits the use of materials without excessive burden or expense, enabling scholars to participate in intellectual discussions, evaluate existing works, and build upon prior knowledge. However, it becomes necessary that a line is drawn at ensuring that such use of copyright content does not conflict with the commercial interests of the copyright holders.

Conclusion

The rapid evolution of technology has added layers of complexity to determining fairness in research-related activities. While traditional practices like students copying limited excerpts for personal study have long been accepted, newer methods such as digital reproduction and electronic sharing have raised significant questions. These debates focus on whether such practices align with the principles of fair dealing, particularly regarding their effect on the market for copyrighted materials.

Courts have consistently emphasized the societal importance of equitable access to research materials. For example, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court recognized that copyright laws should not obstruct scholarly pursuits or hinder the progress of knowledge. This perspective acknowledges the idea that research, especially within educational and non-commercial contexts, is a public good that deserves protection even while respecting copyright holders’ rights. 33

33 (Romesh Chowdhry vs Kh Ali Mohamad Nowsheri, (1965) AIR 1965 J&K 101

Striking a balance between research and copyright involves weighing the purpose and scope of the activity, the necessity of using copyrighted content, and its implications for the market value of the original work. Simultaneously, the broader societal benefits of accessible knowledge must remain a priority. By maintaining this balance, courts and policymakers can ensure that copyright law continues to support innovation and education without becoming a barrier to intellectual growth and equitable access to information.