Are some scholars more equal than others? Surely, no. But some are more visible than others. What lends “Some,” this “extra visibility?” Of course, some (get to) write more and “better” than others. But why? Location is a significant factor, with scholars from the Global North often receiving more citations and reliance in copyright-related research. This over-visibility cuts deeper, invisibilizing the scholars of other parts and more problematically creating an epistemic framework. This framework knits an ideation/thinking pattern that supports certain ideas/reforms/arguments while suppressing, resisting, or discouraging others. While there exist many known and unknown causes and effects of this phenomenon, this essay focuses on the history of IP teaching and research in the Global South, which coupled with citation practices –or the “Citation Game,” as I call it– shape copyright discourses. To illustrate my claims, I problematize Article 17 of the Berne Convention, typically interpreted as authorizing censorship. Using rules of interpretation, especially the provision’s history, I challenge the prevailing interpretation that soothes the dominant “balance” discourse and propose an alternative interpretation that empowers states to permit the dissemination of copyrighted work in emergencies like pandemics. Grounded in Critical Legal Studies and TWAIL, this essay will help re-evaluate the history of copyright history and challenge the status-quoist nature of modern (international) legal thought.