Talk:Delhi High Court restores copyright infringement case at Delhi University

Review of revision 4269271 [Not ready]

 * Missing word, incorrect grammar and autocorrect. Fixed. Agastya Chandrakant   ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4269413 [Passed]

 * Section 52 of the Copyright Act

The debate arises when the student reproduces the book for educational purposes or someone *selling* the copyrighted material and covering the act in the name of educational purpose. Agastya Chandrakant  ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The specific provision cited in the dismissal was, iirc, "(i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction". --Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would have been the case if the student walks into the shop, asks them to photocopy certain pages of the book (which he/she might have borrowed from the library) and obtains the copy. But, it is the shop who is distributing the course pack here. Agastya Chandrakant   ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  16:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is getting into analysis, which should be on the opinions page. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit
editprotected "The charges...was dismissed" should be "were dismissed". Heavy Water (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SVTCobra 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)