Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

Free to reproduce, free to exploit: South Africa’s copyright amendment bill

If the bill is accepted as is, the publishing industry will experience a 33% decline in sales, resulting in a R2.1bn loss in revenue.

Being an academic is like driving a car. We can all do it but few of us actually know how a car is manufactured. When something goes wrong, we phone the Automobile Association.

Similarly, as academics we know how to write, but few have any idea how the publication value chain operates. When something goes wrong we call the editor. The Academic and Non-fiction Authors’ Association is like the AA for authors – and there’s about to be a collision with the South African Copyright Amendment Bill.

The general consensus of a recently organised symposium attended by copyright lawyers, law professors, university presses, journal editors, copyright officers and other interested parties is that the proposed bill will hammer one more nail into the coffin of South Africa’s ailing university system.

The Copyright Amendment Bill applies a very wide ranging definition of “fair use” on all materials to be used for “education”. Free access to information is the cry – but as always, someone is paying. By eliminating the rights of educational authors and publishers and making all published work “free” to be reproduced, the bill could alienate authors from the fruits of their labour and their right to be cited.

Section 12D of the bill allows for unrestricted copying of content “for educational and academic purposes” provided that the copying doesn’t exceed the length justified by the purpose (open to interpretation by a court). The section lists the reproduced content as: “printed and electronic course packs, study packs, resource lists and in any other material to be used in a course of instruction or in virtual learning environments…”.

The section further states that the “name of the author shall be indicated as far as is practicable”. This means it can be left out where not practicable, which opens the door to plagiarism and could lead to authors not being cited.

There will be many negative effects if the bill’s amendments are accepted. Some of these are outlined in a study conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers which assessed the bill’s possible impacts on South Africa’s publishing industry.

The ripple effect

The study found that that if the bill is accepted as is proposed, the publishing industry will experience a 33% decline in sales. This could result in a R2.1 billion loss in revenue and 1250 jobs will be lost in a country where the official unemployment rate is 27%.

What might happen under a reproduction without permission or royalty system? Publishers of both journals and books will institute hefty article processing charges and open access fees will be paid upfront. This means that the cost of publication will no longer be absorbed by publishers. In this model, the author pays. And it’s an expensive business.

The subscription driven “reader pays” model will decline, which means that economies of scale stretched across tens of thousands of subscribing libraries and millions of readers will be replaced with authors paying for readers to read. Less work will be published less often as authors will need to access large sums of money from a limited number of donors to pay for publication. The rank and file who don’t have access to donor funding will have to pay from their own pockets and research grants.

In Canada, where a similar provision was enacted in 2012, the negative effects on the industry are clear. There, widespread copying depressed book sales. Here, the volume of publication output may decrease, and South African journals might become more selective in what they publish. Getting reproduced books for free will also not result in lower costs to students if the Canadian experience is anything to go by.

The consequences

Big tech companies will be legally able to appropriate authors’ intellectual work, monetise it and sell their labour to advertisers. Academics will not own their intellectual labour. Researchers and textbook writers will be enriching these companies because they won’t have to buy permission for reproducing educational texts from publishers.

South Africa’s educational publishing industry will decline. This will put the breaks on the decolonisising of curricula in academia because homegrown publishers publishing homegrown content will have difficulty entering into the market. The country will again become reliant on expensive international imports written for international readers.

The counter position argues exactly the opposite – that all will be well because information freedom will be attained. This argument confuses access with content. Content needs to be created, published and circulated. Content is created out of a particular research and publication production value chain. Access is the consumption side: it involves readers. Libraries, for example, don’t produce content. They house it. Libraries, like bookshops, enable readers to access the content.

The proposed bill will not only be harmful to authors but to the sustenance of scholarly innovation and cultural development.The Conversation

Keyan Tomaselli, Distinguished Professor, University of Johannesburg

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.


To comment, you must be registered and logged in.


Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

Again- this bill is another attempt by ignorant and myopic socialist looters to plunder and violate property rights.

Bastiat was a French political economist and free-market thinker. He had the following to say about the socialist policy of free education:

“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose–that it may violate property instead of protecting it–then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder…..

You say: “There are persons who lack education” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in the second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law 1850.

The United States has a fair use doctrine, and it has spawned new creative industries (anyone who has watched a YouTube review of a movie has benefited from this). Piracy is a separate issue entirely.

I also looked at section 12D of the bill, and it has strict limitations copying materials:

“Educational institutions shall not incorporate the whole or substantially the whole of a book or journal issue, or a recording of a work, unless
a licence to do so is not available from the copyright owner…on reasonable terms and conditions.”

This smacks of sensationalism, and I would urge the Moneyweb community to be circumspect about the usual piling on in the comments.

So what you are saying is that i may move into a room of your house as long i do not take over a substantial part of your house. If you do not provide me with a licence(contract) to occupy your entire house, I may take over your entire house anyway.

This arrangement sounds “fair” to me in a country where we have a lack of housing. Go ahead – advertise your “creative industry” on gumtree.

Your analogy is weak. Real property is not the same as intellectual property. There is a ton of material that enumerates the differences. Once you have demonstrated no a grasp of the issue we can discuss this aspect further.

As for the license being unavailable…imagine if a book is out of print for decades but the copyright hasn’t expired, the authors are dead and untraceable and it’s necessary to share the book with a group of researchers…what’s to be done? Will the knowledge be locked away in a single copy until the copyright expires? Once again, intellectual property is not the same as real property (according to every state that has ever had copyright statutes on the books)…it exists for multiple reasons, one of which is to enable knowledge to be shared. Locking away knowledge for no justifiable reason is pointless and self defeating, especially since intellectual property rights are a creation of the state.

Your last paragraph makes no sense . I presume it was meant as some kind of insult.

Dss ….ever heard “you give an inch, they take a mile?”

Obviously not. Perhaps smartup on your intellect before sharing an opinion

So will this extend to SABS publications? Cause they seem to be making a lot of money selling their intellectual property, that has educational value.

I find myself disagreeing with most of this article. Firstly if you look at the level of state funding universities receive, I believe the any works subsidized in any way by state should be in the public domain. Secondly the best tech comes does not come from the academic field, try the open source community many of whom didn’t attend Uni. Information should be free!

Load All 7 Comments
End of comments.


Insider GOLD
ONLY R63pm

Moneyweb's premium subscription is a membership service which will give you access to a number of tools to take charge of your investments.
Or choose a yearly subscription at R630pa - SAVE R126

Get instant access to all our tools and content. Monthly subscription can be suspended at any time.



Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: