Copyright is not a divine right
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
To have a university openly producing and selling photocopies is (pardon the pun) a completely foreign idea to me. Does the university merely cover its costs (education motive) or make a profit on the copies (commercial motive)?
I'd be willing to make an uninformed bet that most of the photocopied books have non-Indian authors, and that pressure to change the laws will start when Indian authors start having their works copied – the same way that America routinely ignored piracy of foreign authors until the likes of Mark Twain began complaining about Canadian piracies of their own works.[2]
[1]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/26.html [2]http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva74.html
It's a broader interpretation than the US version of Fair Use, obviously, but it seems to me the High Court judge had a good point that copyright must serve the public's interests as well as the publisher's.
Actually, in Australia universities are permitted to do the same thing, as long as it's not the whole book (e.g. a chapter relevant to the week's lecture). So that seems more understandable than photocopying entire books.
Textbooks by Indian authors are considerably cheaper than their counterparts and availability is likely the only reason for photocopying. I recall that in high school, my friends and I all owned copies of the same math and physics books.