Abstract
Music licencing has become increasingly complex with the rise of the digital music industry, leaving composers underpaid and frustrated. Under the heading “Here Comes the Change: Fixing Licensing for the Streaming Generation” this research delves into the urgent need of revising statutory licensing to meet the demands of the streaming era. Inspired by the hopeful lyrics of the Beatles’ hit, the research looks at the challenges posed by digital platforms that have shaken up traditional licensing practices.
With 55 million Indian users on Spotify in January 2023 and an incredible 10 billion songs streamed, copyright societies and statutory licensing have never been more important in the digital streaming age. These groups act as go-betweens, making sure that creators and owners of copyrights obtain fair compensation for all the uses of their work. By creating a framework for the issuance of licenses without individual negotiation, statutory licensing helps to strike a compromise between the rights of writers and the accessibility of music in a dynamic market. By negotiating rates, collecting royalties, and disbursing payments to rights holders, copyright organisations in India, such as the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), are vital in addressing these shortcomings.
In order to regulate the distribution of digital music according to copyright laws, important precedents have been set by international case law, such as A&M Records v. Napster (2001). Cases like F.B.T. Productions v. Aftermath Records (2010) and Capitol Records v. Vimeo (2016) shed light on the compensation of artists in the digital distribution landscape and address the liability of platforms hosting unauthorised copyrighted content and royalty rates for digital downloads, respectively.
Keywords: Statutory Licensing, Music Copyright Societies, Digital Streaming Platforms, Fair Use and Copyright and Fair Compensation in Music Industry.
“Here Comes the Sun”: A Novel Era for Music Licensing
“Little darling, it’s been a long, cold, lonely winter…”
– George Harrison
George Harrison’s famous words, “Little darling, it’s been a long, cold, lonely winter…” from The Beatles’ “Here Comes the Sun,” are well-known and loved by many in the modern music industry. Even more so now, with the advent of digital platforms completely changing the game, artists have had to navigate the complex and sometimes murky world of copyright and licensing for decades. Much like the upbeat mood of the song, the music industry is about to undergo a significant period of change. Several writers have been sidelined and are unable to earn fair compensation for their work in the streaming age due to the long-standing stagnation of outdated statutory licensing systems and unclear payment procedures.
India is only one of several countries where 55 million active users streamed 10 billion songs in a single month in 2023, thanks to digital platforms like Spotify. There have been major gaps in the enforcement of copyright regulations, especially with regard to statutory licensing, brought about by the explosion in music consumption, which has opened up new avenues of expression for musicians to reach listeners all over the globe. In the past, statutory licensing was seen as a fair way to make music accessible to more people. It allowed platforms to utilise creative works without having to negotiate individual contracts. However, it has not adjusted to the digital age’s streaming realities, where artists at times get little payment despite millions of people accessing their works.
Music copyright organisations, who are responsible for collecting royalties and distributing them to right holders and artists, are at the heart of this problem. In order to ensure fair distribution of licensing earnings, organisations like the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) work to link artists with platforms. A “black box” issue typified by late, unjustly distributed, or incorrectly calculated payments has emerged as a consequence of the overwhelming popularity of streaming services, which has overwhelmed traditional infrastructure. Platforms profit from vast material collections, but artists get hardly a fraction of their due revenue. Harrison’s lyrics hint to impending change, but bringing it about will need modern-day collaboration and a rethinking of licensing policies.
A&M Records v. Napster, which defined P2P sharing as copyright infringement, and Capitol Records v. Vimeo are two of the landmark cases cited in this analysis of how different legal systems throughout the globe have dealt with copyright infringement. In light of these cases, we may evaluate the current state of India’s statutory licensing systems and determine what changes are necessary to protect artists today.
In the vein of “Here Comes the Sun,” this study foretells a brighter future for artists, one that will be free of the “cold winter” of inadequate royalties and opaque systems. Instead, a “new dawn” of equitable licensing policies that ensure composers of beloved music receive fair compensation is within reach. We can build a music economy that is fair and sustainable for all artists by rethinking the role of statutory licensing and embracing technological advances. This will allow artists of all sizes and on all platforms to thrive.
Come Together: Bridging the Divide in Music Licensing for the Digital Age
“Come together, right now, over me”
- John Lennon
The swift development of technology has altered the methods of music creation, consumption, and monetisation, resulting in both possibilities and problems for artists, copyright holders, and digital platforms. Platforms such as Spotify, Gaana, and Wynk have provided unprecedented access to music for millions of consumers worldwide, particularly in India, where Spotify recorded over 55 million active users and 10 billion streams in January 2023. Nonetheless, this increase in digital consumption has encountered challenges, especially with music licensing and copyright enforcement.
This study aims to examine how diverse stakeholders—artists, copyright organisations, record labels, and streaming services—can cooperate to improve the music licensing system in the digital era, akin to The Beatles’ “Come Together.” The core of this dilemma is the intricate interplay between technological firms and record labels, both competing for control and profit in music distribution.
The case of Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Media Ltd. highlighted the limits of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, particularly concerning Section 31-D, which regulates statutory licensing for broadcasters. Wynk, a digital music platform, sought to use this provision to continue in providing music after unsuccessful discussions with the rights holders. The Bombay High Court determined that Section 31-D, initially intended for conventional broadcasters like as radio and television, does not apply to internet streaming platforms, resulting in a legal ambiguity for services like Spotify and Wynk that provide both streaming and downloading options.
This case underscores the need for clarity and change in the application of statutory licensing in the digital age. Similar to Napster in the early 2000s, which compelled the music industry to reevaluate its business models, contemporary streaming platforms have shown the deficiencies of existing regulations in regulating digital distribution. The A&M Records v. Napster case is an important historical reference, illustrating the transformation of legal frameworks to address the illicit distribution of music. Contemporaneous platforms like as Spotify are now required to manage licensing for both sound recordings and the foundational musical compositions, often engaging with several tiers of rights holders.
The cited research illustrates that the constraints of Section 31-D are reflected in India’s existing copyright system, which fails to adapt to contemporary streaming technology. As the music business evolves, modernising statutory licensing arrangements is essential to provide equitable compensation for artists. The Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019, presented by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, seek to rectify these deficiencies by broadening statutory licensing to include all types of broadcasting, including digital streaming.
This paper will advocate for a redefinition of statutory licensing to include digital platforms, using both Indian and international case law, including the Napster ruling and the Capitol Records v. Vimeo case. It will also investigate new technical solutions, such as blockchain, to enhance transparency in royalty collection and distribution.
This paper advocates for unity among all stakeholders in the music industry—technology firms, artists, copyright organisations, and legislators—to reconcile differences and establish a more fair and transparent licensing structure for the digital era. By tackling the intricacies of licensing and guaranteeing equitable remuneration for all parties involved, the industry can establish a viable framework for the future.
Let It Be: Navigating the Legal Complexities of Music Licensing in the Streaming Era
“”When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be.”
-PaulMcCartney
Copyright enforcement and music licensing have become major difficulties due to digital usage. Tech businesses and record labels compete for music distribution control and profit. Like The Beatles’ “Come Together.”, this study examines how artists, copyright organisations, record companies, and streaming services may work together to enhance digital music licensing.
The case Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Media Ltd. exposed the limits of Section 31-D of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 , which controls broadcaster statutory licensing. After failing to secure a deal with rights holders, Wynk sought to use this clause to distribute music. As Section 31-D does not apply to digital services, the Bombay High Court’s order put streaming sites like Wynk and Spotify in a legal limbo. As A&M Records v. Napster prompted the music industry to rethink economic models in the early 2000s, statutory licensing must be updated for the digital age. Spotify has comparable challenges in licensing original and vintage recordings after the Napster case showed the legal change needed to handle unauthorised music sharing.
India’s copyright policy shows Section 31-D’s inability to keep up with streaming technologies. The Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019, from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry proposes statutory licensing for digital streaming. This paper uses worldwide case law like Napster and Capitol Records v. Vimeo to advocate for statutory licensing of digital platforms and blockchain technology to increase royalty payment transparency.
From the printing machine invented by William Caxton in 1476 to the Statute of Anne in 1710, which limited book reproduction and protection, copyright law has evolved with technology. Digital technology makes it easier to reproduce and distribute works across countries, making it difficult to determine which laws apply. YouTube and TikTok have blurred creator-consumer boundaries, affecting copyright and fair use.
International v. Altai, Inc. created the “abstraction-filtration-comparison” criteria to distinguish protectable and non-protectable work, which shaped copyright law. The RIAA v. Napster court ordered Napster to stop operations for contributory copyright infringement. In Balaji Motion Pictures v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the Bombay High Court ordered the removal of unauthorised connections to “Udta Punjab,” highlighting the struggle against piracy.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios established fair use for private, non-commercial copying by holding that Betamax VCRs may record TV episodes for subsequent viewing. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., transformative digital sampling was found fair under certain situations. The court ruled in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. that original compilation, not “sweat of the brow,” constitutes copyright. As in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Java APIs are fair for interoperability.
Concerns have been addressed by legal amendments. In keeping with worldwide norms like the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, which forbids copyright protection circumvention, India’s Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, increased technical measures against piracy and broadened fair use to embrace films and sound Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive 2019 requires internet providers to restrict unauthorised uploads, while revisions to the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 allow copyright owners to sue infringing ISPs.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. shows how U.S. fair use and UK fair dealing have adapted to digital material, recognising that digital sampling may evolve. Despite these advances, 74% of Indians pirate software and 76% pirate music. The music business, valued ₹1,068 crore, is driven by 70% growth by OTT streaming platforms.
Penny Lane: Liability for Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age
“Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes.”
– Paul McCartney
The growth of the internet and P2P networks has complicated copyright infringement liability for ISPs, content-sharing platforms, and individual downloaders. Pioneering decisions like Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios created contributory copyright infringement laws. The Supreme Court found that Sony was not responsible for consumers who recorded TV episodes on VTRs since they had several non-infringing applications, such time-shifting, that do not reduce the copyrighted material’s value. P2P networks added complexity, as seen in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., when the Ninth Circuit ruled Napster responsible for contributory copyright infringement. This ruling ruled a manufacturer not liable for users’ infringing conduct provided a gadget had considerable non-infringing usage. The court’s decision was influenced by Napster’s awareness of its platform’s propensity to distribute copyrighted music and its extensive involvement.
The Supreme Court’s “inducement rule” in Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. found Grokster responsible for its platform’s purposeful advocacy of copyright infringement. After the Grokster judgement, the RIAA focused on individual downloaders and filed aggressive DMCA lawsuits. These cases indicated that the legal emphasis has moved from consumers to platform providers, underscoring the need for more complicated frameworks to tackle digital piracy. After sending over 1,500 subpoenas to internet service providers (ISPs) to identify infringing consumers, the RIAA sued 261 people in 2003. In Riana v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., the court found that intermediate ISPs couldn’t be obliged to give subscriber data. After this, the RIAA employed “John Doe” lawsuits to speed up case settlements, raising privacy and fairness issues. Recognising the changing importance of technology in content dissemination, international copyright accords like the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) of 1996 and the Rome Convention of 1961 protect artists and broadcasters.
The Indian Copyright Act of 1957, revised between 1994 and 1999, protects creators’ rights and recognises adjacent rights like performance and transmission, following worldwide norms. Indian law requires legal permission to record live performances to protect performers’ rights. In Harms (Incorporated) Ltd. v. Martans Club Ltd., the courts defined public performance and stressed that illegal recording or performance infringes the artist’s rights. Recording without permission violates these guidelines. The Bombay High Court ordered the removal of links to the unauthorised release of Udta Punjab in Balaji Motion Pictures v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., an example of how the Indian legal system addresses piracy.
As digital content dominates worldwide consumption, copyright violation must be addressed. In a changing digital economy, international treaties and state legislation like copyright safeguards in India help retain these rights, while high-profile cases like Sony v. Universal, Grokster, and Napster influence the legal landscape. Regulatory frameworks will continue to balance intellectual safeguarding, accessibility for everyone, privacy, and advancements in technology.
A Hard Day’s Rights: Copyright Issues and Jurisprudence in the Digital Age
“It’s been a hard day’s night, and I’ve been working like a dog.”
– John Lennon
Like the Beatles’ “A Hard Day’s Night,” copyright holders have opportunities and challenges in the digital age. Digital platforms have transformed content consumption, notwithstanding their obstacles. The pandemic boosted digital media consumption and copyright violation and piracy. In recent years, physical sales, live performances, and retail licensing have declined, leaving some artists unemployed. Digital platforms countered some income loss, but material was illegally downloaded, denying authors and copyright holders their due.
Digital anonymity makes tracking and avoiding infringement harder. Piracy protection technology has advanced, yet it is still insufficient. As live internet performances and independent releases grew popular, artists started their own labels to promote their work. Copyright holders already had many obstacles in the digital age, but administering rights and collecting revenue via these means grew much more difficult.
As legal companies founded by writers and copyright holders to administer their rights and safeguard their interests, copyright societies are vital in this changing environment. These organisations are subject to India’s 1957 Copyright Act. They collect royalties, license members’ works, and prosecute infringement. The Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) protects literary works, PPL India manages sound recording licenses for public performance and broadcast, and IPRS represents composers, lyricists, and music publishers. Registration and renewal of these organisations are strictly regulated by the federal government.
The Copyright Act, 1957, especially Sections 30–36A, governs Indian copyright groups. Section 33 restricts copyright licensing to registered groups. Copyright societies must present a tariff plan including fees or royalties within three months of commencing operations. Disputed parties may challenge this proposal to the appellate board. For copyright companies to comply with the law, the Registrar of Copyright demands frequent comprehensive reports.
Several significant rulings have influenced copyright groups in India. By forcing hotels to pay for music licensing for New Year’s Eve celebrations, the Mumbai High Court stressed the importance of public performance permits. Judgement and copyright organisations have clashed. In M/s Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. M/s Hotel Gold Regency & Others, the Delhi High Court declared that only the copyright owner or an exclusive licensee may launch infringement actions in their own name, not copyright organisations. Copyright organisations, which represent huge groups of rights holders, now have greater trouble protecting their interests due to this ruling. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. introduced another degree of difficulty to the question of copyright society authority. Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotels Limited, the Bombay High Court found that Novex Communications and PPL may issue Section 30 licenses without being copyright organisations.
Copyright organisations and other corporations have engaged in legal battles. In Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Kolkata Knight Riders, IPRS sued the franchise for unlawful Hindi song singing during IPL matches. Public event planners and copyright holders continue to fight, after the Kolkata High Court refused an injunction. Copyright groups won numerous instances including Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Debashish Patnaik. The Delhi High Court awarded IPRS compensatory and punitive damages against an Orissan hotel for unlawful musical compositions.
In the landmark case Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, the Supreme Court ruled that a composer or lyricist cannot restrict a cinematographic film owner from publicly displaying or screening the picture for profit. The court stressed that the soundtrack is part of the film’s copyright and does not need the composer’s authorisation. The Calcutta High Court affirmed this verdict in Eastern India Motion Pictures vs. The Indian Performing Right Society, stating that a film’s music or lyrics belong to the producer without an opposing contract.
The Bombay High Court discussed the copyright act’s compulsory licensing provision in Phonographic Performance Limited and Others vs. Music Broadcast Private Limited. A fair royalty rate is essential when analysing compelled licensing claims, the court decided. In Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Leopold Cafe and Stores (Local), the Bombay High Court barred Novex from issuing licenses due to its unregistered copyright society status, even though prior decisions had allowed such organisations to lease works as assignees or owners.
These instances show how complicated copyright law is in the digital age. The continuing judicial interpretation of Sections 30 and 33 of the Copyright Act, which control owners’ independent licensing of works and copyright organisation registration, makes copyright management uncertain. Copyright holders must balance public interest, author rights, and technological innovation to secure their intellectual property in an increasingly linked world.
The Long and Winding Road: Concluding the Journey of Copyright Challenges in the Digital Age
“The long and winding road that leads to your door will never disappear.”
– Paul McCartney
Digital copyright holders confront a convoluted and tough path, like the Beatles’ “The Long and Winding Road” with many hurdles but a finish. Digital content development and consumption have expanded, but copyright protection is threatened by new threats. The growing accessibility of digital platforms has boosted piracy and infringement, making authors more subject to unpaid exploitation. Traditional income methods including physical purchases and live performances have fallen since the epidemic accelerated digital consumption.
Digital copyright infringement is harder to detect and manage because offenders may stay anonymous. Technological impediments frequently arise when copyright holders lack the resources and infrastructure to combat piracy. During the pandemic, live internet events and independent releases let musicians to reach new audiences, but rights management and revenues were problematic without defined legal frameworks and collaborative platforms.
Modern copyright protection laws depend on copyright organisations, which administer authors’ works and provide fair recompense for their usage. Copyright holders in India use IPRS, PPL India, and IRRO for licensing, royalties, and lobbying. These organisations must register, be transparent, and follow all restrictions under the Copyright Act of 1957.
Court rulings influence and enforce Indian copyright laws. Recent court cases like IPRS Limited vs. Hello FM Radio and Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Hotels stress the need of copyright licensing. This reinforces the concept that customers should compensate writers for their creations. Cases like M/s Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. M/s Hotel Gold Regency & Others have severely hampered copyright organisations’ capacity to sue in their own names, making issues worse. Copyright holders have to sue to prevent this limitation due to the music industry’s scattered ownership rights.
If a musical composition appears in the picture, the owner of a film gains copyright over the full work, including the soundtrack, according to Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association. Although media borders are dissolving, this ruling nonetheless affects how copyright holders maintain and defend their rights in the digital era. Phonographic Performance Limited and Others vs. Music Broadcast Private Limited and Others and other cases have examined the complexities of compulsory licensing and the need for fair royalty rates, strengthening the legal framework between copyright owners and licensees. Courts’ interpretation of Sections 30 and 33 of the Copyright Act has questioned copyright organisations’ and owners’ rights. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Leopold Cafe and Stores etc. Ltd. demonstrate the ongoing debate over who can grant licenses—registered copyright organisations or private owners and assignees?
To conclude, digital copyright holders have both challenges and possibilities. Like the long, twisting path that ends, case law and legislative frameworks grapple with digital copyright protection’s complicated dynamics. Despite digital disruption, increased enforcement tools, clear legal precedents, and copyright group collaboration may help authors safeguard their rights.
Author: Abhinav Mahatha,3rd Year Student at NUSRL,Ranchi
Co-Author : Divyansh Sonkar, 2nd Year B.A L.L.B Student at Vivekananda School of Professional Studies, IPU, New Delhi
