Paxerox. Bawal. Bakit?

Why do they prohibit photocopying of law books at UP Shopping Center? I thought before that they only prohibit the reproduction of an entire book without permission from the owner or publisher. But to my dismay when I found out that it is also prohibited to photocopy few pages from any law books. “Sa Law lib lang daw pwede.” I doubt this whole thing.

You see, if we read the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, it is provided therein that:

CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT

Sec. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. -

185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:

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

(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;

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

(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Sec. 187. Reproduction of Published Work. –

187.1. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 177, and subject to the provisions of Subsection 187.2, the private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the reproduction is made by a natural person exclusively for research and private study, shall be permitted, without the authorization of the owner of copyright in the work. (Emphasis supplied)

There you go! One can photocopy a copyrighted book for fair use, that is, for private purpose and not for profit and it is for personal study. In fact, if one can photocopy a book other than a law book at UP Shopping Center, then why single out law books?

But there is this confusing provision which provides:

187.2. The permission granted under Subsection 187.1 shall not extend to the reproduction of:

(a) A work of architecture in form of building or other construction;

(b) An entire book, or a substantial part thereof, or of a musical work in which graphics form by reprographic means;

(c) A compilation of data and other materials;

(d) A computer program except as provided in Section 189; and

(e) Any work in cases where reproduction would unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or would otherwise unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. (Emphasis supplied)

As for my part, if this provision is to be applied strictly (specifically the “substantial part thereof” phrase), then the purpose of the law in allowing private persons to photocopy copyrighted works for fair use would be defeated. How can you study a book if you are not allowed to photocopy a substantial part of it? I agree, the reproduction of an entire book should be prohibited, but photocopying a substantial part of the book should be allowed, otherwise, the fair use intention of the law would be rendered nugatory.

Lastly, they say we should instead go to the UP Law library because there, photocopying is not restricted. But why? If people in UP Law library whose business is to photocopy are allowed to photocopy law books, why do people in Shopping Center not given the same privilege? If these people from UP Law library are doing it not for profit then I don’t question them, but since they are doing it for profit then they stand in the same footing with those people from the Shopping Center.

Ubi jus, ibi remedium.

I rest my case.