top of page

World Book Day, Libraries & Copyright

Libraries were established in India in as early as sixth century A.D. For instance, Nalanda University in Bihar had its own library with a huge collection of manuscripts.[1] Other ancient universities, such as Taxila and Vikramashila, also had libraries. It is interesting to note that the Mughal period gave a further stimulus to the growth of libraries and Mughal emperors appointed scholars as librarians. However, such libraries established by emperors functioned like private institutions and the admission was limited. [2]

Thereafter, the British rule influenced the development of libraries in the early nineteenth century. For much of the nineteenth century, India had been an export market for books produced in Britain and targeted primarily at British readership. [3]For example, Priya Joshi’s research reveals that there was a significant influx of British books into India books, and a high proportion of the English books circulating were novels. While this influx from British markets continued throughout the century, some publishers perceived India as a significant potential market in its own right, and saw that publishing practices needed to be adapted to take advantage of this market. The first attempt to do so was by the Murray Publishing House, with its colonial editions of the 1840s, but the series was widely recognized as a failure. However, ventures into educational markets, and the later “colonial library” series of works published by Macmillan were considered to be more significant. In 1808, the Government of Bombay proposed to register libraries, which were to be given copies of books published from the “funds for the encouragement of literature”. [4]

Initially, only the three presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras had public libraries. Out of these, the public library at Calcutta was the most significant and it was later developed into the National Library of India. Created in 1835 by the citizens, Calcutta Public Library was organized as a library “of reference and circulation, which would be open to all ranks and classes without distinction and sufficiently extensive to supply the wants of the entire community in every department of literature”[5] By the end of the nineteenth century, the library was said to have housed around a hundred thousand books.[6] Almost around the same time, subscription libraries were established in several Indian cities but these were, not public libraries as they did not provide free books for all, and were mostly confined to small, affluent portions of the society.

It is relevant to discuss the role and contribution of the “Father of the Indian Library movement”- Mr. S.R. Ranganathan. He was a mathematician-turned-librarian and the first librarian appointed to the library at the University of Madras. In 1927, he outlined plans for an extensive interconnected rural library system at a conference, which soon became the blueprint for rural library services in the entire region. Ranganathan formulated the famous “Five Laws of Library Science” which explains a librarian’s mission and philosophy. It is pertinent to discuss herein below Ranganathan’s Five Laws in the context of the objectives of the Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement:[7]

1) Books are for use. Ranganathan postulates this law in opposition to the then prevailing philosophy of libraries for “preservation” of books by absolutely barring access to them, even from the very people who sought them. He advocated for the recognition of users’ rights to free and unhampered use of books. Further, he also observed that policies regarding the location of the library, the hours it was open to the public, the architecture of the library itself and the skill of its staff could potentially interfere with the realization of this law’s goals.

2) Books are for all. This law postulates that the rights of every class of users should be recognized equally irrespective of age, gender, class, location/distance or disability. He elaborates that ‘Books are for all’ would have to be reflected in the location of the library, the selection of books, in the funding for special rural outreach programs, selection of library staff, design of the library interiors et cetera. This principle would ensure that every reader has access to their specific book requirements. It casts a responsibility on librarians to be aware of the demands of the readers/users and respond to the same actively Further, it requires the librarians to reach out to those who would normally be unable to access libraries like the ailing, prisoners, et cetera.

3) To Every Book its reader. This law postulates that every book has its own unique reader and the librarians must take all necessary steps to ensure that the book finds its reader. Ranganathan conceives of the librarian as a salesman of the idea of reading and considers it his duty to increase the market for books through his efforts such as appropriate arrangements of book shelves, organizing of book-readings and lectures or performances.

4) Save the time of the reader. This law makes it mandatory to adopt institutional policies and administrative procedures that are directed towards saving the time of the reader. It is relevant to note here that this included the adoption of the open-access system where readers could freely browse books placed on shelves as opposed to ordering them from a catalogue; the adoption of classification and cataloguing systems that would make it easy for readers to locate books on shelves etc. The fundamental principle would have to be the convenience of the reader over administrative convenience.

5) The library is a growing organism. The last of Ranganathan’s law entails that libraries should be designed to allow them to grow since ‘an organism that ceases to grow will petrify and perish’. The library including its administrative policies must be kept “open source” – to accommodate emergent uses.

These five laws are very relevant even today. It may even be appropriate to say that Ranaganathan probably anticipated and predicted the foundational principles of the Internet itself while formulating the Five Laws of Library Science.[8] Further, the above discussion makes it clear that the objective of libraries has always been to facilitate free access to knowledge to its patrons.


Entry 49 of the Union List vests the power in the Parliament of India to enact laws relating to Copyright. The Copyright Act enacted in 1957 incorporated an extensive list of fair dealing exemptions and library exceptions.[9] The scope of the exceptions generally focuses on reproduction of copyrighted works. The reproduction right may be most often affected as libraries make copies for preservation, research, or any other purpose. When libraries give copies to users for their study or research, the library is also implicating the distribution right. The “exceptions to infringement” were introduced as safeguards to ensure that the strict implementation of copyright law did not hinder the very objective of copyright itself –wide dissemination of knowledge. The fact that the legislature tends to consider these things also suggests that copyright law plays an important role in enabling the citizens to have access to the materials hosted by libraries.

Now, let us look at the codified library exceptions one by one. Section 52(1) (n)[10] of the Copyright Act provides that the storage of a work by electronic means by a “non-commercial public library” for the purposes of preservation is permissible where the library in question already possesses a physical copy of such work. This clause was introduced by way of the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act. This is the only library exception that applies to any kind of work, i.e., literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works or films or sound recordings. The precondition is that the library should possess a non-digital copy. It is relevant to note that “possession” would not include a copy on a temporary loan: it should be with the library on a permanent basis.

Further, Section 52(1) (p) [11] allows reproduction of unpublished literary, dramatic or musical works for the purpose of research or private study, which kept in the library, museum or other institution to which the public has access, provided that where the identity of the author of any such work, is known to the library, museum or other institution, the provisions of this clause shall apply only if such reproduction is made at a time more than 60 from the date of the death of the author. It is significant to note that Rajya Sabha prior to voting on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1982 on August 4, 1983 proposed to insert a provision in the Copyright Act for publication of unpublished works of Indian authors who are either unknown or dead or not traceable.

Lastly, Section 52(1) (o)[12] of the Copyright Act, 1957 permits non-commercial public libraries to make up to three copies of books not available for sale in India for use by the library and such copying would not amount to copyright infringement.

Let us see how Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science can be read in conjunction with the aforesaid library exceptions:

  1. Interlibrary loan (“ILL”) is an integral part of modern library services. ILL is a process that allows libraries to share materials with each other. If a library user requires material, for example a case or book chapter from another jurisdiction, that is not available locally, the library may arrange to borrow the material from a faraway library. The lending library may choose to send the physical item to the local library. It can be assumed that the Parliament intended to provide for this function in the definition of “commercial rental” in Section 2 (fa), including its platform or technological neutrality. The term is defined in the Copyright Act as “commercial rental” does not include the rental, lease or lending of a lawfully acquired copy of a computer programme, sound recording, visual recording or cinematograph film for non-profit purposes by a non-profit library or non-profit educational institution. The exclusion of giving copies of copyrighted work on rent, lease or lending by non-profit libraries and educational institutions, is a step towards encouraging research and scholarship. The “commercial” preceding rent implicitly takes “non-commercial” or “non-profit” renting out of its scope. Many scholars believe that this could have been a separate library exception as it allows non-profit libraries to rent materials in electronic formats as mentioned above. This further implicates Ranganathan’s law that library is a growing organism inasmuch as it employs technological neutrality. Libraries regularly innovate, using modern technology to ensure access to information. Materials can be loaned in person, in print, or they can be loaned online; the Internet serving as simply “a technological taxi” delivering those same materials.[13] This reflects the principle of technological neutrality: essentially similar activities involving different technologies should be treated equally. If the argument that the principle of technological neutrality no longer applies to digital activities of libraries is accepted then longstanding and innovative initiatives of libraries to facilitate access to information will be curtailed, and access to information will be diminished. This interpretation will also defeat Ranganathan’s law that “books are for all” because access to information will be curtailed;

  • Further, many library materials do not circulate outside the physical space, so the lending library may copy a portion of the original and supply the copy to the local library. This is known as document delivery, and is the practice that in CCH the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed as a user right and confirmed is not a “communication to the public”.[14] Non-profit and/or non-commercial public libraries may effect these loans by uploading a copy and providing a link through which the user can download the borrowed material at a time and place they choose. This common service of libraries engages a reproduction as authorized by Section 52 (1) (p) and (o) provided the other conditions set out in the said provisions as fulfilled. This function of the libraries is consistent with Ranganathan’s laws of “books are for use” and “save the time of the reader”. An interpretation that these laws of Ranganathan do not apply to digitization of works or digital libraries would not be consistent with the library exceptions; it would either halt a daily and important function of libraries or trigger unsustainable cost to the library or its users. Further, a bare perusal of the Rajya Sabha debates prior to voting on the Copyright Bill, 1955 – May 14th & 15th, 1957 would make it explicit that the law makers acknowledged that the aim of Copyright law (Bill) is dissemination of knowledge and the society is constantly evolving with new ways to disseminate knowledge.[15] Thus, it would only be appropriate to apply the library exceptions to digital practices of libraries and digitization in general;

  • Similarly, technological advancements in academic libraries allow educators to deliver course materials directly to students efficiently and in a controlled manner, as electronic reserves. Print materials are digitized and uploaded to a course reserves platform, whereby students can click a link to download and use them electronically, rather than by taking turns to borrow the print edition. The fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act contemplate such use inasmuch as it is for personal or private use and/or research. Yet other innovations premised on the principle of technological neutrality are emerging. Controlled digital lending (“CDL”) is an emerging practice that enables a library to circulate a digitized title in place of a physical one, using a link by which the user can access the digital reproduction for a limited time. CDL permits lending of only the number of copies that the library owned before digitization.[16] For example, a library that owns three print copies of a title may digitize one copy and use CDL to lend that digital copy and only two of the three print copies. Alternatively, it may lend three digital copies, or two digital copies and one print. When the library lends a digital copy, it prohibits lending the physical one. CDL is an emerging innovation that enables the library to lend digital editions to users in remote locations who are unable to borrow the print, facilitates access to library resources for readers with disabilities or physical access limitations, thus advancing the library’s public interest mission. This practice also promises to achieve the objective of Ranganathan’s laws of “books are for use”, “books are for all” and “to every book its reader”. This can also be read in conjunction with Section 52 (1) (n) of the Copyright Act. However, there has to be a shift from “preservation” to “usage” because if we harp too much on preservation it could hamper access to information as Ranganathan postulates in his law “books are for use”. Further, CDL presumes existence of a physical copy of book/reading material and its consequent digitization. Thus, this process entails preservation by default in both mediums as one copy would be “on hold” while the other is loaned out. Thus, we have to look at this provision to facilitate digitization for use by the readers.

The Lok Sabha prior to voting on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1992 on March 17, 1992 acknowledged that the interest of the reader is of utmost priority to the government and thus, readers should have access to authentic works at reasonable price but not at the cost of quality.[17]

It is pertinent to note here that access to educational materials in India often depends on the purchasing power of the average Indian student. The GNIPC Comparative Price Tables[18] indicate the relevant price of a book in direct proportion to the gross national income per capita (GNIPC) of the country where it is sold, namely, India, the US, UK and Netherlands. Many students in India either cannot afford expensive first-edition books prescribed by their course of study or do not have access to such material. This is also of special concern for print-disabled students, since the number of books available in formats accessible by the print-disabled is very small. In India, less than 0.5% of the books available to the sighted are available to the visually impaired, according to the World Blind Union.[19] The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, aims to foster access to the differently abled by exempting the conversions of copyrighted works to accessible formats from infringement. Section 52 (1) (zb) of the Copyright Act provides that it would not be a copyright infringement if any individual or any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities and on a non-profit basis creates accessible format copies or distributes them to persons with disabilities.[20] Given the low availability of books in accessible formats in India, it is imperative to give an expansive reading of the term “available for sale in India” to benefit the print or physically disabled. This would also be in line with Ranganathan’s law “books are for all”. This can also be achieved by scanning and/or digitizing educational materials in accessible formats to benefit the print disabled. Further, such scanning and/or digitization will also benefit those students who cannot afford to purchase original first-edition books or cannot physically access the library.


The Open Access (OA) movement essentially argues that all academic literature should be available freely to all the users: in a form that is “digital, online, free of charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” [21] Prof. John Willinsky sees the OA movement as “the next step in a tradition that includes the printing press and penny post, public libraries and public schools.” [22] The movement seeks to control two related problems: the access problem and the impact problem.[23] The access problem is a result of massive increase in the price of academic journals and the restrictions placed by publishers on the reuse of published research.[24] It is also associated with the serials crisis. [25]With shrinking library budgets and a consistent annual raise of 6% in the price of academic journals, the access problem has reached an “uncomfortable equilibrium.” [26]

Access to educational materials which are particularly necessary to pursue higher education in India is one of the primary concerns and the judiciary has acknowledged in University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services that libraries can play a key role in the creation of course packs. Section 52 (1) (i)[27] provides that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or student in the course of instruction will not be an infringement of copyright. The court interpreted the term “in the course of instruction” as follows[28]: the term ‘instruction’ in the context of a teacher would mean something which a teacher tells a student to do in the course of teaching or detailed information which a teacher gives to a student to acquire knowledge of the subject matter. Further, the court observed that the use of the word “instruction” preceded with words “in course of” would mean in course of instruction being imparted and received.

Applying tests as laid down by courts of (i) integral part of continuous flow; (ii) connected relation; (iii) incidental; (iv) causal relationship; (v) during (in course of time, as time goes by); (vi) while doing; (vii) continuous progress from one point to next in time and space; and, (viii) in path in which anything moves, the court pertinently held that words “in course of instruction” within the meaning of Section 52(1)(i) of Act, would include reproduction of any work while process of imparting instruction by teacher and receiving instruction by student continues i.e. during entire academic session for which student is under tutelage of teacher and that imparting and receiving of instruction is not limited to personal interface between teacher and student but is a process commencing from teacher readying herself for imparting instruction, setting syllabus, prescribing text books, readings and ensuring, whether by interface in classroom/tutorials or otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying doubts of students, that pupil stands instructed in what she has approached teacher to learn. Similarly, for the term “in course of instruction”, the court observed that even if the word “instruction” has to be given the same meaning as ‘lecture’, it would have to include within its ambit the prescription of syllabus preparation of which both teacher and student are required to do before lecture and studies which students have to do post lecture and so that teachers can reproduce work as part of question and students can answer questions by reproducing such work, in an examination. Consequently, reproduction of any copyrighted work by a teacher for the purpose of imparting instruction to a student as prescribed in the syllabus during academic year would be within meaning of Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act. Thus, the court opined that the University’s act of making a master photocopy of relevant portions (prescribed in syllabus) Plaintiffs’ books purchased by the University and kept in its library and making further photocopies out of said master copy and distributing same to students did not constitute infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act.

Per the Ld. Single Judge’s judgment in this case, and his interpretation of the phrase “in the course of instruction” [29], it would be safe to assume that libraries are also allowed to prepare digital course packs of books as prepared by and used by educational institutions for instructional use.

The impact problem is an obvious result of the access problem.[30] Without access to scholarly research, the impact of the scholarship is never fully realised. This consequently negatively impacts the recognition of individual scholars, hinders scientific progress and demotivates the efforts of funders who support academic research.[31] Prior to 1950s, journals did not operate commercially and favoured practices that are fundamental objectives of today’s OA movement.[32] The physical and biological sciences’ scholars were among the first academics who identified the potential of OA publishing and demonstrated its viability. In August 1991, Prof. Ginsparg launched the platform, possibly the first repository promoting OA in publishing.[33] arXiv was developed to allow researchers worldwide with Internet access to submit and read full-text articles, giving equal entry to everyone from graduate students and upwards.[34]

Interestingly, the OA movement developed around the same time as the Internet and thus, it relies on the Internet’s potential to eliminate the barriers of price and permission in academic publishing.[35] The Budapest Open Access Initiative noted, “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment…The new technology is the Internet.”[36]

Indian Mathematicians, Computer Scientists and Biologists were amongst the first to participate in global OA initiatives by depositing pre-print versions of their articles in the arXiv repository.[37] In 2002, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) established the first Indian electronic repository: Eprints@IISC.[38] Thereafter, in 2011, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), issued an Open Access Mandate. Each laboratory funded by the CSIR was required to create an interoperable OA repository.[39] All the journals published by the CSIR funded laboratories were required to be made OA compliant. In 2014, two departments under the Ministry of Science and Technology published an Open Access Policy.[40] The policy clearly says that since the funds disbursed by the two departments are public funds, the knowledge generated from this research should be publicly accessible. The policy encouraged institutions to create institutional repositories, which, it was hoped, would directly feed into a central repository:

Another significant step towards the OA movement in India was signing the Delhi Open Access Declaration (DDOA) in 2018 as the stakeholders adopted a ten-point agenda to ensure the availability of research literature and the dissemination of research outputs.[41] However, to achieve its true objectives, India needs a national OA mandate.[42] A step towards this was taken by the Government of India in December 2020, when it proposed its ‘One Nation, One Subscription’ policy, where “for one centrally negotiated payment, all individuals in India will have access to journal articles.” [43] However, the policy subscribes to the reader pays subscription model instead of the author-pays OA models advocated by European funders.

It is relevant to note that due to restrictions on access, inter alia, the last decade has witnessed many shadow libraries, such as a*.org, monoskop and[44] The public catalogues of these libraries made them susceptible to judicial sanctions. was one of the first victims of such judicial sanctions and, seventeen publishers were granted an injunction against the website in the US.[45] However, the most recent shadow library which faced judicial sanctions in several countries is Sci-Hub. In what has been identified as ‘the largest copyright infringement case in the history of the US and the history of the world,’ [46] Elsevier, in 2017, secured a $15 million injunction against Sci-Hub.

Sci-Hub emerged as one of the largest shadow libraries of academic articles. Sci-Hub provides access to over 68.4% of the world’s academic research along with access to over 85% of articles published in toll-access journals.[47] It has surely attracted litigation all across the globe, including India but it cannot be denied that its objective is of public interest. The suit against Sci-Hub in India is pending litigation. Dr. Bohannon aptly commented on the debate around the public interest involved with Sci-Hub and said that Sci-Hub is “an awe-inspiring act of altruism or a massive criminal enterprise, depending on whom you ask.” [48]

Such instances somewhere elucidate that there is lack of freedom to access to knowledge in every society. It would be safe to say that piracy would not exist if there were no unnecessary barriers to access to knowledge. Particularly with the advent of technology, we should be looking to fasten the pace of dissemination of knowledge instead of curbing it further to possibly benefit from making the same content available restrictively through different formats.

Thus, it is important to keep in mind the real objectives and functions of libraries. Many library users often look to digital access first. For some, the inability to physically travel to a library because of a remote physical location, cost-effectiveness, or personal physical ability means that physical lending is not practical. For others, physical access is a matter of great inefficiency or constraints of the holdings of the jurisdiction in which they are located. Dissemination of knowledge is the fundamental objective of copyright law. Let us endeavour to aid the same.


[1] Zahid Ashraf Wani, DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN INDIA, Library Philosophy and Practice, ISSN 1522-0222 (2008).

[2] Id.

[3] Rimi B. Chatterjee, Macmillan in India: A Short Account of the Company’s Trade with the Sub-Continent, in MACMILLAN: A PUBLISHING TRADITION 153, 154 (Elizabeth James ed., 2002).


[5] “The National Library – Expansion to be stepped up – Maulana Azad’s Assurance – 2nd February 1953.” The Hindu speaks on libraries. Madras: Kasturi & Sons Ltd,. 103-108 (1992).

[6] Id.

[7] S. R. Ranganathan, Five Laws of Library Science, 2nd edn (Stosius Inc/Advent Books Division, 1996).

[8] Public Libraries and Access to Knowledge (A2K): A History of Open Access (OA) and the Internet in India in the 19th and 20th Century.


[10] THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, Section 52 (1)(n).

[11] THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, Section 52 (1)(p).

[12] THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, Section 52 (1)(o).

[13] Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, [2012] 2 SCCR 231 [ESA] at para 5.

[14] CCH at para 64.

[15] Prashant Reddy and T. Sumathi Chandrashekaran, Indian copyright law from 1952 to 1999: Parliamentary debates, reports & legislation, Volume 3, 199 (2017).

[16] Hansen, David R. and Courtney, Kyle K., “A White Paper on Controlled Digital Lending of Library Books” (2018) [Controlled Digital Lending of Library Books] online:

[17] Id. at 339.




[21] Peter Suber, Open Access (MIT Press 2012) 4.


[23] Elizabeth Gadd and Denise Troll Covey, ‘What Does “Green” Open Access Mean? Tracking Twelve Years of Changes to Journal Publisher Self-Archiving Policies’, 51 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 106, 107 (2019).

[24] Id.; Also see: Stevan Harnad and others, ‘The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access’ 30 Serials Review 310, (2004).

[25] Jurchen (n 13) 161.

[26] Bosch and Henderson (n 9) 226.

[27] THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, Section 52 (1) (i).

[28] SCC OnLine Del 5128 (2016).

[29] SCC OnLine Del 5128 (2016).

[30] Harnad and others (n 42) 312 ‘Other researchers must find the findings useful, as proved by their actually using and citing them. And to be able to use and cite them, they must first be able to access them. That is the research article access/impact problem’.

[31] Tennant and others (n 29) 3.

[32] Aileen Fyfe, ‘Publishing the Philosophical Transactions: The Social, Cultural and Economic History of a Learned Journal, 1665-2015 -AHRC’ Impact 33, 35 (2018).

[33] Joe Miller, ‘WHY OPEN ACCESS TO SCHOLARSHIP MATTERS’, 10 Scholarly Works 733, 734 (2010).

[34] Paul Ginsparg, ‘ArXiv at 20’ 476 Nature 145, 146 (2011).

[35] Saimah Bashir and others, ‘Evolution of Institutional Repositories: Managing Institutional Research Output to Remove the Gap of Academic Elitism’ Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 1, 3–4.

[36] Suber (n 39) 19 (2021).

[37] Vivek Kumar Singh, Rajesh Piryani and Satya Swarup Srichandan, ‘The Case of Significant Variations in Gold– Green and Black Open Access: Evidence from Indian Research Output’ 124 Scientometrics 515, 517 (2020).

[38] Francis Jayakanth and others, ‘EPrints@IISc: India’s First and Fastest Growing Institutional Repository’ 24 OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives 59, 62 (2008).


[40] Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and Technology, ‘DBT AND DST OPEN ACCESS POLICY: POLICY ON OPEN ACCESS TO DBT AND DST FUNDED RESEARCH’ (Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India 2014).

[41] Anup Kumar Das, ‘DELHI DECLARATION ON OPEN ACCESS 2018: AN OVERVIEW’ 65 Annals of Library and Information Studies 83–84 (2018).


[43] Department of Science and Technology, ‘Science, Technology and Innovation Policy’ (Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India 2020) Draft STIP Doc. 1.4 13.

[44] For details see: Balázs Bodo, ‘The Genesis of Library Genesis: The Birth of a Global Scholarly Shadow Library’ in Joe Karaganis (ed), Shadow libraries: access to knowledge in global higher education (The MIT Press ; International Development Research Centre 2018) 25–53; Stephen Witt, ‘“The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet,” by Justin Peters’ The New York Times (8 January 2016).

[45] Bodo (n 112) 26–27.

[46] Albert N Greco, ‘The Kirtsaeng and SCI-HUB Cases: The Major U.S. Copyright Cases in the Twenty-First Century’ (2017) 33 Publishing Research Quarterly 238, 243.

[47] Frederik Sagemüller, Luise Meißner and Oliver Mußhoff, ‘Where Can the Crow Make Friends? Sci-Hub’s Activities in the Library of Development Studies and Its Implications for the Field’ 52 Development and Change 670, 671 (2021).

[48] John Bohannon, ‘The Frustrated Science Student behind Sci-Hub’ (Science | AAAS, 26 April 2016). 144 Jack E James, ‘Pirate Open Access as Electronic Civil Disobedience: Is It Ethical to Breach the Paywalls of Monetized Academic Publishing?’ 71 Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 1500, 2 (2020).


bottom of page