NEW DELHI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation has charged the Human Resource ministry of seeking to amend the Copyright Act 1957 �surreptitiously' at the behest of the music industry, �which is now being dominated by the IPRS/PPL – the Copyright Societies, completely ignoring and sidelining the interest of the entire Broadcasting Sector as also the Public interest.'

The IBF has expressed shock and dismay at the manner in which the Act is sought to be amended, noting that this would result in a �disastrous impact on the survival of the television and radio broadcasting industry', apart from restricting access to the general public.

Sources in the HRD Ministry said they had not yet received the objections of the IBF, but noted that these will be considered when received. It was also stated that the proposed amendments were only at the drafting stage after due consultation with the Information and Broadcasting and Law Ministries, but denied that it was an a hurry to rush through these.

In a press note, the IBF which is the apex body of general entertainment and news radio and TV channels said the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act by the Human Resource Development Ministry would only �end up helping only a couple of monopolist music companies/Copyright Societies at the cost of producers, artists, lyricists etc.'

The IBF said it appears that the ministry is deliberately going about amending the Act �under a preconceived agenda' and wants the amending Bill introduced in the Parliament at once, the Foundation noted.

The IBF said it was extremely disappointed to note that that the HRD Ministry had not had any consultations whatsoever with the affected media industries on these proposed changes in the recent past – �and thus seems to be trying to rush through these proposed amendments in a hush-hush manner'.

All other stakeholders, the authors, artists, lyricists, musicians etc. perhaps have also not studied the proposed amendments to get satisfied that the money that will fill the coffers of the music societies/companies will be equitably shared with them.

The IBF said there were several complaints regarding the functioning of Copyright Societies and instead of regulating the functioning of these Societies, the amendments sought to strengthen them with unbridled powers and privileges.

It said the news television channels, which enjoy Constitutional protection in respect of free speech and expression, were likely to be most severely hurt by any tinkering with the Fair Use... provisions of the existing Section 52 of the Copyright Act.

In the interest of consumers, stakeholder and transparency, the general practice adopted by Ministries/ Regulators was to place the proposed legislations/ amendments in public domain/on their websites and invite comments from the stakeholders – well before the proposed amendments are sent to the Union Cabinet for approval. This had also been done by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry in the case of the Broadcast Services Regulation Act and the concerns of all sections of stakeholders were addressed.

But in the case of the Copyright Act amendments, the Broadcasting Media is neither aware of the exact amendments nor has there been any consultation with the stakeholders prior to the drafting of the amendment Bill, with the IBF learning about this only through media reports.

The Foundation has submitted a representation to I&B Minister Ambika Soni and the HRD Minister Kapil Sibal and sought appointments with both Ministers. Among its concerns, IBF lists Compulsory Licensing of copyrighted works wherein two Societies PPL & IPRS are operating but there are several disputes with respect to their functioning and style of operation as also the exorbitant tariffs and charges which are being demanded by them unilaterally; and amendment/dilution of Fair Use provisions for News and other channels especially of sports events and other fair use of songs and music including version recordings (where original music/sound track is not used);

The IBF has alleged that at present, the music companies, copyright societies, producers etc. fix rates for use of songs/music totally on their whims and fancies and are entirely arbitrary and exorbitant without any basis. They are demanding exorbitant rates (as high as Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,00,000) per song for one to two minutes usage and in some cases the demand could go as high as Rs.1,50,000. However, when the TV Channels or news channels or radio stations do not use the original sound track of the songs/ music but employ their own orchestra etc, commonly called �version recordings', it is considered as �fair use' under Section 52 of the Copyright Act and no royalty or nominal royalty is demanded and paid. If the concept of �fair use' is tinkered with, the revenue of these industries would be greatly affected and impacting the quality of the programmes will not be in the interest of general public.

There is an urgent need for a regulator with respect to copyrighted works; statutory licensing provisions in order to ensure that broadcasters are not made to run from pillar to post and are not left to the whims and fancies of the copyright owners/copyright societies has to be ensured, and there should be proper regulation of copyright societies and their operations which are not being run in a transparent manner. The interest of lyricists, composers and authors are being substantially ignored by the copyright societies and they have frequently complained against the arbitrary functioning of these societies.

A full time efficient functioning Copyright Board is needed to effectively and quickly dispose of licensing and tariff related issues, it has been argued.