UNTERHALTER AJ The ICJ supported Blind SA’s submission that the Copyright Act ought to be aligned with the Marrakesh Treaty to cure the inconsistency of the Copyright Act with the Constitution and acceptable international standards.16 The MMA argued that the Copyright Act was inconsistent with domestic, regional and international obligations. It made submissions as to the importance of the recognition of the right to freedom of expression and the need freely to receive and share ideas in the digital era. 17 As to Recreate Africa, the High Court did not find the arguments made by Recreate Africa to have been of assistance.18 [13] The High Court declared the Copyright Act unconstitutional and made the following order: “In the light of the findings in this judgment and subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court the following order is made: 1. The Copyright Act 98 of 1978 is declared unconstitutional in terms of section [172(a)] of the Constitution Act, 1996. 2. In terms of the provisions of section [172(2)(a)] it is ordered that the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill [B 13B -2017], quoted in paragraph 9 of this Judgment, ought to forthwith be read as if specifically incorporated in the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1978 to remove the inconsistency of the Act with the Constitution. 3. The operation of the declaration of unconstitutionality referred to in order 1 is suspended for period of 24 months to afford Parliament an opportunity to remedy the defect [giving] rise to the unconstitutionality. 4. The Copyright Act is, from the date of this order, deemed to read as if it contains the new proposed section 19D contemplated by clause 20 of the Copyright Amendment Bill [B 13B-2017]. 4.1. Pending a decision of the Constitutional Court, in confirmation proceedings, on the validity of the Copyright Act; and 16 Id at paras 18-9. 17 Id at para 23. 18 Id at para 26. 10