It has been a long time since I wrote my last posting related to Bulgaria. During the last days, however, a police campaign or even a raid directed against the online content provider www. chitanka.info (chitanka meaning an alphabet book in Bulgarian) achieved a huge medial attention and, particularly, that of the Bulgarian blogosphere. While the police claimed a success over a group engaged in “Internet piracy”, journalists and bloggers saw an attack against the knowledge society in Bulgaria.
What was the problem in the first place?
Chitanka.info had digitised numerous printed books and made them available on the Internet to the world at large. In legal terms, chitanka.info had copied and adapted (mainly literary) works and subsequently communicated those to the public. On the grounds that, the foregoing acts represented acts restricted by copyright law, publishers and right owners’ associations argued that chitanka.info had infringed the copyright in the works, because they acted without the consent of the respective copyright owners. Apparently, these very right owners instructed the police to raid chitanka’s premises and to seize the equipment hosting the arguably infringing materials.
The operators of chitanka.info raised several defences, some of which were legal by their nature and some that were not. Regarding the latter they argued that their offering addressed school kids and thus served to satisfy primary educational needs. They further argued that some of the books they offered to download represented sold-out editions, not re-published since then and thus no longer available in bookstores. Eventually, they stressed on the misery reigning in public libraries and on the fact that today’s consumers demanded an online access to books, but publishers yet failed to (legally) satisfy this demand. Chitanka.info’s legal defences grounded on Art 24 (9) of the Bulgarian Act on Copyright and related Rights (Copyright Act) and on the fact that their offering was merely altruistic as it did not depend on a payment.
I would like to focus on chitanka.info’s legal defences in this posting. Art 24 deals with the free (fair) use of works for which users neither need tot obtain the copyright owners’ consent nor owe they any payments in connection with thei use of those works. Subsection 9 of this Article regards – as the Bulgarian and hence legally binding version of the act calls them - the “publicly accessible” libraries. Please observe that the English translation of the act accessible via the link above refers to “public libraries”. This ostensibly unimportant distinction, displayed by the translation and of later relevance, might prove decisive for chitanka.info’s case.
To the best of my knowledge, neither the Bulgarian Copyright Act nor other legislation in force in Bulgaria defines the term of a “publicly accessible” library. By contrast, the Bulgarian Public Libraries Act delivers a definition of the term “public library”. Accordingly, a library needs to comply with certain requirements set out in Art 8 of said act, in order to be deemed a “public library”. There is no doubt that chitanka.info does not comply with those requirements. The Public Libraries Act was, however, delivered in 2009, whereas Art 24 (9) of the Bulgarian Copyright Act was last amended in 2005.
The issue suggests a few logical questions:
- What did the lawmakers have before eyes when they drafted the Public Libraries Act?
- Did they consider the “publicly accessible” libraries as mentioned in the Copyright Act, and
- Are public libraries to be equated with publicly accessible libraries at all?
Depending on the answer of these questions, there might be following solution approaches:
- The terms public library and publicly accessible library are identical. Since chitanka.info does not qualify as a public library it likewise fails to qualify for the limitation under Art 24 (9) granted to publicly accessible libraries.
- The terms are not identical and the lawmakers did not intend to curtail the limitation under Art 24 (9) to only public libraries. Moreover, the limitation should apply to any library that is publicly accessible. Chitanka.info would then qualify for the safe harbour provided by Art 24 (9). Public libraries would qualify as well as they are by their definition “publicly accessible”.
It will be up to a court of competent jurisdiction to decide somehow or other. I personally would support the second solution approach as I am of the opinion that copyright law is misappropriated when used to prevent the spreading of information, particularly for educational purposes. My friendly piece of advice to the police would then read: do not misappropriate the law, guys.
Did you find this article informative, helpful or entertaining? If yes, do not forget to leave a comment or share it by pressing one of the below buttons!
No related posts.