NEW DELHI: The controversial Copyright Amendment Bill which had been deferred earlier because of differences between the Information and Broadcasting and Human Resource Development Ministries has finally been cleared by the Union Cabinet.

It is understood that the two Ministries in their ‘fine tuning’ exercise have agreed to restore the provision of statutory licensing as proposed earlier in 2010.

The amendments to the Copyright Act 1958, aim at according unassignable rights to 'creative artists' such as lyricists, playback singers, music directors, film directors, dialogue writers who will be paid royalty every time the movie they have worked in is aired on a television channel.

A statutory licence is an exception under Copyright Act. It puts limits on the basic principle of the copyright law, that authors and creators should have the exclusive right to control the dissemination of their work. Under statutory licensing, the royalty or remuneration for the author or creator is specified by law or such set negotiation.

With the bill getting clearance, the statutory licensing clause will not specify users allowing for television and new media broadcasters as well as radio broadcasters to be benefited.

However, the bill allows for charging different rates depending on the use.

The legislation had been opposed in Parliament in its last session, particularly the clause for statutory licensing for radio broadcast of literary and musical works.

Radio operators had also protested the move by the HRD Ministry to significantly alter an earlier version of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2010.

Association of Radio Operators for India (AROI) president Anurradha Prasad has written to I and B Minister Ambika Soni pointing out the adverse impact of a proposed change in the Bill by the HRD Ministry from the previous versions.

Ms Prasad had told radioandmusic.com that the version of the Bill that was tabled in Parliament late last year mandates statutory licensing of music by a body called Copyright Board, at rates prescribed by that agency. Now there is a proposal to delete the statutory licensing clause.

"Absence of such a regulation would mean that there would be too many bodies and companies demanding different royalty rates and representing different rights. Statutory licensing makes it easier for both radio companies to pay royalty and for music companies to collect royalty. This in fact is the only practical way as otherwise rate disputes and rights disputes would hamper growth of



 1  2  Next Page >>


Comments: 1
A+ | A- Set Default
Related stories

Print | Share | Email 


You are not logged in. Please Login or Continue as a Guest.

 
  Recent Comments:   | Add Comment  
Achille Forler 03:02:54 PM 14 May 2012 Report Abuse
1. The Bill makes non-assignable only the "right to royalties" of lyricists and composers. It doesn't mention film directors or dialogue writers since they did not make any representation to the Parliamentary Committee who, therefore, removed this provision from the Bill. 2. The Standing Committee introduced Compulsory Licensing through Societies (IPRS & PPL) in the Bill making access to music repertoire a 2 window affair instead of the hundreds of licensors today; this should have solved the problem of the broadcasters. Statutory licensing is to copyright law what emergency is to democracy. Will broadcasters accept a statutory rate for the sale of their programs? 3. License fees will still have to be paid to the Societies because the Copyright Board, not being an owner of rights, can only decide on the rates but can't collect the monies.
Recent Comments