Home | Feedback | Contact Us
  1. See Music market- National, http://www.indianmi.org/national.htm.
  2. wrong with India’s music industry?, http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/05spec.htm.
  3. Piracy costs Indian music industry $325 mn: E&Y, http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/piracy-costs-indian-music-industry-325-mn-ey.
  4. Id.
  5. Supra note 1.
  6. Nikhil Krishnamurthy, The Statutory Mechanical License in India Whose Version [of the Law] is Correct?, Manupatra Intellectual Property Reports, MIPR, Vol. 1, A-115, 2007.
  8. See id.
  9. The T-Series Story, http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/t-series-2.htm.
  10. See id
  11. See id
  12. See T-Series laps up music rights of Salman Khan Starrer "My Love Story", http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/t-series-laps-up-music-rights-of-salman-khan-starrer-my-love-story_100427699.html.
  13. See Phonographic Performance Ltd. India – About Us, http://www.pplindia.org/pplweb/aboutus.aspx.
  14. See Phonographic Performance Ltd. India – About Us, http://www.pplindia.org/pplweb/aboutus.aspx.
  16. the Tariff rates applied by PPL are in gross abuse of its monopoly position as the registered collecting society for sound recordings. The Tariffs have no relation to worldwide practices of corresponding societies.” Nikhil Krishnamurthy, Sound Advice [Or What you Always Wanted to Know About Phonographic Performance but were Afraid to Ask], Manupatra Intellectual Property Reports (MIPR), Vol. 2, A-12, 2008; See also The Bootleg Baron, http://business.in.com/article/changing-lanes/the-bootleg-baron/1422/1; "the managements of IPRS and PPL have actively colluded to deny lyricists and composers their share of royalties, especially the monies derived from ringtone royalties, which as we discussed earlier amounts to Rs. 360 crores over the last 6 years", Did the big music companies on IPRS & PPL collude to deny lyricists and composers crores of rupees in 'ringtone royalties' - An investigation, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html.
  17. J.A.L. STERLING. , WORLD COPYRIGHT LAW 358 (2d ed. 1998)
  18. Id at 764.
  19. See Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works art. 9, Sept. 9, 1886, 1161 UNTS 3.
  20. See Copyright Board, http://copyright.gov.in/frmCopyrightBoard.aspx.
  21. See Section 31(1), Copyright Act, 1957.
  22. Supra note 19.
  23. See Section 31(1)(a), Copyright Act, 1957.
  24. See Section 31(1)(b), Copyright Act, 1957.
  25. Supra note 22.
  26. Supra note 20
  27. Id.
  28. R.P.Merges, Contracting into liability rules:IPRs and collective rights organizations, California Law Review 1296,Vol.84 (1996).
  29. See Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2003 (26) PTC 70 CB.
  30. See id.
  31. See Phonographic Performance Ltd. v Music Broadcast (P) Ltd., 2004 (29) PTC 282 Bom
  32. See order dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi in Case No. 10/2003.
  33. See Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v Entertainment Network (India) Ltd., AIR 2004 Del 326.
  34. (2008) 13 SCC 30
  35. See Indian Supreme Court on an "IP" Roll: "Scotch" Whisky Denied Protection While Music "Compulsory Licensing" Scope Expanded, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/05/indian-supreme-court-on-ip-roll-scotch.html.
  36. this judgment of Justice Sinha has stretched the concept of "public interest" a tad too much.", Compulsory Licensing and the Copyright Holder: Entertainment Network Limited v. Super Cassettes Industries, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/06/compulsory-licensing-and-copyright.html.
  37. See SC ruling gives more teeth to Copyright Board for deciding on royalty rates, http://www.exchange4media.com/e4m/Radio/RadioNews.asp?section_id=7&news_id=31072&tag=25980&pict=3
  38. "2% of net advertisement earnings of each FM radio station accruing from the radio business only for that radio station shall be set apart by each complainant for pro rata distribution of compensation to all music providers including the respondent herein in proportion to the music provided by the respective music providers and broadcast by the complainant.", Copyright Board order dated 25th August 2010 on music royalties case, http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightboardOrders-25-08-10.pdf
  39. See Compulsory licensing dispute between PPL and radio stations lands up before the Madras High Court, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/11/compulsory-licensing-dispute-between.html
  40. The court held, "It appears to this Court that Section 31 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 mandates that the owner of the copyright should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding on whether refusal by such owner to grant licence to the complainant was unreasonable and if held unreasonable, determining the compensation to be paid to such owner. This procedure which encapsulates the principles of natural justice is non-negotiable. Since admittedly, the Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in which the impugned order came to be passed, prima facie it appears that the impugned order cannot be relied upon by any of the Respondents herein or any other to insist on the issuance of the compulsory licence vis-a-vis the copyrighted works of the Petitioner or to even rely upon the impugned order as regards the rates fixed for the purpose of grant of compulsory licence.", See Id.
  41. See Madras High Court 'stays' the 'Compulsory Licensing Order' of the Copyright Board against SIMCA & Super Audio, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/12/madras-high-court-stays-compulsory.html; See also 2-wk stay from Madras HC on Copyright Board order's applicability to SIMCA recordings, http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/2-wk-stay-madras-hc-applicability-copyright-board-order-simca-recordings
  42. See Madras High Court admits PPL’s appeals and vacates ‘stay’ granted to SIMCA against Copyright Board order, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/12/madras-high-court-admits-ppls-appeals.html.
  43. See id.
  44. Supra note 38
  45. Supra note 41
  46. SIMCA petitions Madras HC to scrap Copyright Board, http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/simca-petitions-madras-hc-scrap-copyright-board.
  47. MANU/SC/0378/2010.
  48. A copy of the writ filed is available at http://www.spicyip.com/docs/CopyrightBoardWrit.doc
  49. Invalid Appointments and the De Facto Doctrine, http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2010/09/invalid-appointments-and-de-facto.html
© 2007 India Law Journal   Permission and Rights | Disclaimer