A breach of copyright prosecution this week may signal the end of cheap textbooks for university students
A major case of breach of copyright comes to court this week which academic publishers hope will put an end to illegal copying of university textbooks. It is hoped that the legal action will sound a warning across the country that the widespread theft of intellectual property will no longer be tolerated.
One branch of the franchise operation Prontaprint stands accused of illegally photocopying large quantities of textbooks and of retaining master copies, enabling it to rapidly reproduce more.
At the end of August last year, a customer of the copy shop informed the Publishers’ Association of South Africa (Pasa) she had seen considerable numbers of books being copied at Prontaprint in Johannesburg.
The Dramatic, Artistic and Literary Rights Organisation (Dalro) was asked to investigate and sent Jacobus Marais to the shop on September 5. Marais allegedly asked an assistant, Leigh Trollope, if she would be prepared to photocopy and bind two books he had brought with him. When she agreed, he placed an order for 15 copies of each.
It is claimed that Marais talked to Trollope, who apparently explained that there were more than 50 master copies on the premises, from which he could choose to order as many copies as he wished. It is alleged that these master copies were full-volume, unauthorised photocopies of publications, kept in sheet form for very easy, high-speed copying.
Marais then placed an order for a copy of three different academic titles and allegedly saw another ready-bound, copied textbook. He asked if it was for sale and, when Trollope said it was, he bought a copy.
In a sworn affidavit by Paul Johannes Roos, director of Dalro, it says: “Ms Trollope used words to the following effect: ‘We know it’s illegal, but so far we fortunately haven’t been caught’.”
Marais returned to the shop three days later to collect his ordered photocopies, this time with a colleague, Mdu Ndawu. Marais paid R482 for the copies ordered and was given a receipt.
It is claimed that Ndawu talked to a machine operator called James, who admitted that both he and the owner of the business knew what they were doing was illegal and that they had considered moving the master copies to the rear of the office so that they would be less visible.
Roos’s affidavit states: “It is clear that the owners and staff of Prontaprint are intentionally engaged in a scheme of systematic and blatant infringement of copyright for profit.” He called upon the South African Police to seize master copies to use as further evidence of the scale upon which copyright infringement was being committed.
Prontaprint was raided on September 14 last year. Police officers were accompanied by Dalro and Pasa officials, and witnessed the removal of several substantial boxes of master copies from the site. In total, there were 54 different titles.
If Prontaprint were to be found guilty of illegally copying all the confiscated works, let alone the extra copies sold to Dalro in the course of its investigation, the shop could be liable for fines of R270 000. It is believed that the shop owner intends to plead guilty.
The legal penalties for breach of copyright were explained in detail in a letter sent from Dalro by certified post to Prontaprint, Auckland Park, in October 1991. The ownership of the shop has changed since that date.
Similar letters have been sent to other mass copying outlets, as the copying that took place at this particular shop is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It is commonplace in schools and universities, particularly as part of so-called study guides or course packs which are sometimes sold by lecturers.
A copyright clearing system at Wits University generates some R150 000 a year in copyright fees. But nonetheless, campus newspaper Wits Student says: “University books are very expensive … it is cheaper to photostat the relevent sections.”
Other universities around South Africa have regularly been informed about the legalities of photocopying and licencing, with limited success to date.
South Africa’s Copyright Act is in the process of being strengthened, but it will take a long time to catch up with some other countries in attitude, let alone in practice. In many countries, the publisher is paid a sum every time a book is borrowed from a library.
Some South African publications remain cavalier about the copyright of freelance photographers’ and journalists’ work, but moves afoot in Europe will eventually have repercussions here.
Pasa has met with the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals to explore a Reproductive Rights Licencing Agreement. Dalro already operates a scheme whereby publishers it represents allow copies of prose to be made at 15c a page and music at 50c a page.
While 28 publishers eagerly await the outcome of the Prontaprint case, plans are afoot for many more prosecutions.