Music piracy a major challenge, says Chief Justice

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 16 Dec 2013, 07:30

The Hindu, December 16, 2013:-

"Piracy is a daunting challenge to the music industry in contemporary times, said Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam. In spite of an effective law, its implementation was ineffectual.

'Devastating effect'

He said copyright was a right given by law to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films.

'For more than a decade, the recording industry has been complaining that online copyright infringement is destroying the music industry... ...' he said. ..."

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday ... epage=true

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 16 Dec 2013, 08:11

He said copyright was a right given by law to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films.

“For more than a decade, the recording industry has been complaining that online copyright infringement is destroying the music industry. The revenue of conventional record labels has plunged in recent years,” he said.

Is he not referring to film industry only..

Does it apply to creators of or composers of carnatic music also..??

What are the rights of the composers

Does it mean that the artists who render their songs are infringing th composer's copyright..??

How the artists claim the infringement of their rendition when they themselves have infringed the rights of composers?

I seek enlightenment from the learned members..

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 16 Dec 2013, 10:51

Well, we have touched on this (and more) so many times.

Many of the songs are composed by people who dies so long ago that there is no question of copyright. But, for living composers...

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 16 Dec 2013, 14:32

IMHO there is a very easy solution for piracy,and that is to go the creative commons way.
If you give away a portion of your content for free and look to monetize it on alternative platforms like say istores,amazon,google etc etc.The jargon for that is FREEMIUM. (if you give away for free what is the incentive to pirate? will the pirate pay you to access the content on his platforms?).

This works two ways firstly by going onto these platforms the onus is on these operators to ensure that with suitable content id other "pirated" work are automatically blocked. (for eg on youtube try putting a song which is watermarked with their content id within 300 seconds you will get the algorithm match,of course it is a bot sometimes it takes it too far for eg the pacharamiah varnam according to google is copyrighted to sa rega ma ,however we can fight those battles later! Secondly you are also generating a long term perpetuity for the artists and accompaniments.

The very least estimate on digital platforms to curb piracy has been about 50%
Hightime we look to embrace technology so that all the stakeholders benefit.

My 2 chittaswarams.
Venkat

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 16 Dec 2013, 16:44

Some us have been recording the music program relating to MMU, Carnatic music Idol, cleveland music program etc for long now telecast by Jaya Tv...and uploading them at You Tube..even audio of such program are uploaded in SP archives some of them relate to past periods...2004..if I remember right..There were no objection so far either from Jaya TV or the programer of the event..These are very well appreciated especially from rasikas of foreign countries..These are done purely with interest on music..with out any monetary benefit..

To day I received a message from one of my FB friends... the message posted at the wall of the programer of these events..The message quoted by him reads..

" Sir see this message from (Mela on ground is over. Gala on air begins tomorrow. MARGAZHI MAHA UTSAVAM Every morning 7 30 am and eve one hour 5 30 to 6 30 pm. YOUTUBE PIRATES BEWARE. this year you are going to be terribly sued!)

Subhasree Thanikachalam.... She has posted in her wall "

Is this also to be called pirated..?? please advice ..

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 16 Dec 2013, 17:18

Nick H wrote:But, for living composers...

I'd say that there is enough material from the ones who have passed on, that there will be little incentive to 'pay' to sing/perform the compositions of the living! So, as far as contemporary composers go, my best guess is that they will most likely waive their rights to copyrights, just for the joy of hearing their 'babies' on the concert stage. I am sure every composer would like to repeat the compliment Sri Vasudevachar paid both Sri MVI and Smt. MSS (regarding his khamAs kRti)!

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 16 Dec 2013, 17:36

If someone is going to copy and distribute, then either he should have bought the copyright, or should have got the written permission from the copyright owner.

Without holding the copyright or without the permission of the copyright owner, one cannot copy and distribute either for a fee, or free.

A public performance can be recorded, but it can be used only for personal use; it cannot be copied and distributed either for a fee, or free.

The copyright owner can sue for damages. And youtube piracy is very easy to prove.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 16 Dec 2013, 18:14

I have since privatized all my you tube uploads..
Even though there is a clause...reading..
" These video clips are provided here only in the hope of enticing more audience by educating them for Carnatic music. Not to have any commercial advantage of monetary benefit. The intent is to spread the musical
message of great Composers and Artists so as to reach as many listeners as possible and as stated these are provided here for educational purposes and for listening pleasure.
Care is taken not to include commercial clips as the rights of owners are
respected. However, any slip in this regard may be intimated to me by E Mail to enable removal of same. [email protected]"

There will be no recording from television channels which even otherwise I discontinued sometime back..

Here,
who is the copyright owner..??
The composer..
The performer..
The producer..
The telecaster..
As per Section 17 of the Act, the author or creator of the work is the first owner of copyright..
( http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articl ... India.html )

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 16 Dec 2013, 18:27

I find myself revisiting the music of my life, 1950s-1970s, on YouTube. It is nearly all there --- and that is, almost always, a breach of copyright.

The copyright of an original is not the same as the copyright of a reproduction ... but they are both copyright.

In music, we also have the issue of performance rights, and, on that topic I have no knowledge.

askn · Post by **askn** » 16 Dec 2013, 19:05

This is a useful document to help explain copyright law and its provisions
http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 16 Dec 2013, 19:16

If this helps you

, I quote from the website gov.in linked by ASKN:

Who all have rights in a musical sound recording?

There are many right holders in a musical sound recording. For example, the lyricist who wrote the lyrics, the composer who set the music, the singer who sang the song, the musician (s) who performed the background music, and the person or company who produced the sound recording.

Is it necessary to obtain any licence or permission to use a musical sound recording for public performance?

A sound recording generally comprises various rights. It is necessary to obtain the licences from each and every right owner in the sound recording. This would ,inter alia, include the producer of the sound recording, the lyricist who wrote the lyrics, and the musician who composed the music.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 16 Dec 2013, 19:47

There are many right holders in a musical sound recording. For example, the lyricist who wrote the lyrics, the composer who set the music, the singer who sang the song, the musician (s) who performed the background music, and the person or company who produced the sound recording.

On a lighter note, as I was reading this list which includes pretty much everyone in the music ecosystem, I was expecting the final one to say 'and last but not the least the people who listen to the music'.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 16 Dec 2013, 22:25

Look at http://www.kutcherirecording.com for a detailed discussion on this issue from various aspects.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 16 Dec 2013, 22:42

VijayR wrote:Look at http://www.kutcherirecording.com

That looks like a very good initiative.

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 16 Dec 2013, 23:04

Yes, what a great concept!
This is reminiscent of the move by Grateful Dead, many of whose bootleg recordings are still available freely on archive.org (a site that many of us here including Varsha, RSachi,CPblog and myself use to upload stuff)

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 17 Dec 2013, 00:14

Indeed. This seems like a substantial step. No artists have provided the preference yet, but it is too early. I am not sure if it is there, but there should be a way for artists to remove or change their preference and the effective data of such things should be maintained.

This is all about recording, but what about the usual question that is asked by rasikas: Do the performers violate the copyrights of the composers when they perform their composition?

I see the list of rights of the copyright holders and the performers. The legal interface between the performer and the composer is not clear to me. Do performers need to get clearance from composers before singing their songs?

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 17 Dec 2013, 00:57

vasanthakokilam wrote: This is all about recording, but what about the usual question that is asked by rasikas: Do the performers violate the copyrights of the composers when they perform their composition?

Yes, if the work is still under copyright. As is stated on that website, copyright on a musical work expires 60 years after the death of the copyright holder. So, if the composer passed away in 1952 or earlier, the work is in the public domain. If not, it is still under copyright.

vasanthakokilam wrote: I see the list of rights of the copyright holders and the performers. The legal interface between the performer and the composer is not clear to me. Do performers need to get clearance from composers before singing their songs?

Yes, that would be the legal interpretation.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 17 Dec 2013, 07:13

Good and learned information..

" Bootlegging a kutcheri and uploading it to websites such as YouTube, Sangeethapriya, Sangeethamshare, or other file sharing websites is certainly not fair use!

Again, prefacing the YouTube clip with a disclaimer that "This is not for commercial purposes and only for educational purposes" does not automatically make it fair use! "

Almost all uploads at you tube are recorded stuff from various TV channels..The up-loaders are not obtaining permission from these TV channels..

What will be the position regarding Audio recording from various radio stations or TV ..and uploading at sangeethapriya sites..?? and many other web sites or blogs.

It is not only the case of Artists' permission..But also that of Producers of the program and that of the Telecaster

Rasikas may have no alternative other than to attend concerts..

Is there any time limit with in which the copyright claims are to be lodged..

askn · Post by **askn** » 17 Dec 2013, 08:27

venkatakailasam wrote:Is there any time limit with in which the copyright claims are to be lodged..

From the GoI Handbook

Is it necessary to register a work to claim copyright?

No. Acquisition of copyright is automatic and it does not require any formality. However, certificate of registration of copyright and the entries made therein serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law with reference to dispute relating to ownership of copyright

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 17 Dec 2013, 08:29

venkatakailasam wrote:Rasikas may have no alternative other than to attend concerts..

)

But I agree, it is hard on the majority, who do not live in places that are centres of carnatic music performance

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 17 Dec 2013, 08:36

Copyright Office, Government of India.

Copyright in India - Act, Amendments, Rules, Regulations, News, etc. etc. & FAQ :-
http://copyright.gov.in/frmNewsAndEvents.aspx

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 17 Dec 2013, 08:41

venkatakailasam wrote:Good and learned information..

Is there any time limit with in which the copyright claims are to be lodged..

The statute of limitations is generally 3 years. However, there is some ambiguity in when the clock starts for the 3 years. It can either be 3 years from when the act that violated copyright took place or 3 years from when the act was discovered. In the US, federal courts have ruled in favor of the 3 years from discovery.

EDIT: Nick, Mahavishnu, VK: Thanks.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 17 Dec 2013, 08:47

Nick H wrote: But I agree, it is hard on the majority, who do not live in places that are centres of carnatic music performance

Which is why I am infinitely glad to see webcasting initiatives like the ones by Parivadini, Charsur, CMANA, etc.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 17 Dec 2013, 10:05

For the benefit of rasikas who could not attend the concerts and for those who could not listen at the time when they telecasts are in the Air,

the television channels themselves can post such concerts at You Tube..This will go a long way to help the rasikas..

On behalf of the rasikas, is it possible to seek exemption from copy right Act of carnatic music as well as Hindustani Music except those which are on Album
on the ground that it is not on par with film music..

Here is another view..
Make classical music accessible to the masses: Amartya Sen..

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday ... epage=true

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 17 Dec 2013, 11:10

I give a sample of the messages received from you tube viewers..

My parents have been listening to many songs that you have posted on you tube. Being senior citizens, their every day routine begins this way.

They find that the videos are all privatised now and they are unable to access them. There were some songs which they used to listen daily as part of their daily routine, for ex :- Sri Madhava Vasudeva sung by S. Sowmya. This was part of a podhigai TV program shown a few months ago. My mother goes through a lot of aches and pains and this song in particular gives her a lot of solace and relief.

We would really appreciate if you could grant us the link to this song. As you can see, it is not for commercial use and our every day life runs by it.

Hope you understand.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
<name redacted by mods for privacy reasons>

my reply..
have to make them private due to some tech.reasons I have made public, this particular song..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQi2Uj2SXi0

pranams to your parents..

reply..

Thank you very much for your prompt response and rescue.. My parents are indeed very thrilled and relieved, now their mornings will go as per routine

Really appreciate your help.

Thanks,
<name redacted by mods for privacy reasons>

Stricter the laws..the lesser the composure to old ones..

vichu1947 · Post by **vichu1947** » 17 Dec 2013, 15:43

While Subhasree Thanikachalam has boldly made a statement that violators will be sued, I don't know whether she knows what it involves in suing the violators.

Firstly, Youtube is based out of USA and the users are spread across the world. If someone in France received Jaya TV using Dish and uploaded a JayaTV programme to youtube, will she go after the offender in France ?? if 10 users do it from 10 countries, will she go after all them in 10 countries? Does she / Jaya TV has the financial commitment to go after them ??

The easy way is to write to youtube and ask them to remove the video. This is called takedown notice as per Digital Millenium Copyright act (DMCA) of USA. Youtube will promptly do it.

But does she know that if the uploader submits a counter notice saying Jaya TV has no right over the video, Youtube HAS TO restore the video back after a delay of 14 days ??

And within this 14 days, Jaya TV has to file a case against youtube in a district court in USA restraining youtube from restoring the video showing proof that they do have rights.

if such a restraining order is not received by youtube within 14 days, youtube HAS to restore the video back. Does she know that ??

All these are available from many sites on "counter take down notice" of DMCA. One such link is:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question ... tionID=132

Now the question, is Jaya TV or Subhashree has the authorised agent of Jaya TV going to file court case in USA for every infringing video in youtube?? Jaya TV may end up shutting down paying lawyers fees !

Making bold statements like "violators will be sued" is one thing. The reality of implementing them is another.

The above laws mentioned are applicable to any content distribution site such as youtube, sangeethapriya etc that have their servers in USA. They all are protected by DMCA under "safe harbour" clause. That is why it is not easy to go after them .

Having said all of this, I don't know why anyone should record and upload Margazi Maha Utsavam recordings in youtube when Jaya TV themselves are uploading to their channel in Youtube, as mentioned by Mrs Thanikachalam

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 20 Dec 2013, 14:17

Deeply regret that you tube have suspended my account based on copyright infringement intimated by Jaya TV for the posts recorded and uploaded relating to MMU, carnatic music Idol etc. relating to years as back as 2010....not only my account but of all those who were uploading program from Jaya TV..I take as New year gift...

vichu1947 · Post by **vichu1947** » 20 Dec 2013, 14:52

you may submit a counter notice using the details given in the below link:

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/co ... ments.html

counter notification can be send using your email ID registered with youtube for your account

within 14 days if Jaya TV does not move a USA based court and get a restraining order on youtube (which is too short period and too expensive affair) , your account will be activated and all the links will be restored

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 20 Dec 2013, 19:00

vichu1947 wrote:you may submit a counter notice using the details given in the below link:

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/co ... ments.html

counter notification can be send using your email ID registered with youtube for your account

within 14 days if Jaya TV does not move a USA based court and get a restraining order on youtube (which is too short period and too expensive affair) , your account will be activated and all the links will be restored

Whatever you do, please DO NOT do what vichu has suggested! You will be filing the DMCA counter-notice under oath… If you lie on that, you would have just perjured yourself. Perjury, or lying under oath, is considered a very serious offense (it is a felony in the US).

It is unfortunate that Jaya TV (or MMU organizers or whoever else) has gone ahead and initiated such action… I hope they realize that the loss of goodwill caused by such high-handedness is only going to hurt them. I am sorry to say that this was done in poor taste...

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 20 Dec 2013, 19:49

It is unfortunate that Jaya TV (or MMU organizers or whoever else) has gone ahead and initiated such action… I hope they realize that the loss of goodwill caused by such high-handedness is only going to hurt them. I am sorry to say that this was done in poor taste...

I completely agree.

I attended one of the Jaya TV events this year. The kind of policing done by Manimaran and his strong-armed subordinates at the event was downright graceless. I really wish that they did not have to resort to this kind of tactic.

Definitely a loss of public goodwill as VijayR has expressed.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 20 Dec 2013, 20:54

If I recall right, a long while back, Subhasree Thanikachalam wrote here that she had to answer to a lot of people in her organization about all these youtube uploads. I understood as that she was trying to keep it going in the interest of rasikas amidst tremendous opposition. This was quite a few years ago. I guess the equation has changed.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 20 Dec 2013, 20:58

Here is that post from 2009:
http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 21#p149921

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 20 Dec 2013, 21:45

Are we following Indian copyright law or the federal copyright law of US from where You tube functions..

Are there any difference in their application?

vichu1947 · Post by **vichu1947** » 21 Dec 2013, 00:12

There is NO question of Indian copyright law. The uploaders of youtube are spread across the world so different laws can not be applied

Youtube comes under DMCA which is USA law. Youtube's website clearly says that. That is why they take "take down" ntice seriously and have blocked your account. Due to the same reason, they will act on your counter notice also.

Regarding VijayR's advice not to file a counter notice as it is Perjury, I have a different view on that.

When you say in the counter notice that the material has been wrongly flagged as copyrighted by Jaya TV, what we are saying is one or more of the below:

1) Jaya TV does not have the rights - it may mean, the artists have the rights and not Jaya TV OR the total content is out of copyright. The copyright of lyrics has expired long back, the copyright to the tune of the kritis has expired long back, the ragas have been there in existence for centuries and hence not copyrighted and so on.

2) Jaya TV does not have the rights - it may mean, the content uploaded comes under "fair use". Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 says the below:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If you look at points 1 and 4, clearly you have a case. You did not exploit it commercially and make money. And because of your upload, there is no effect on the market value of the video. In other words, because you uploaded Jaya TV did not loose any money as it was never released commercially by Jaya TV.

Based on the above points, you can say that the material is NOT copyrighted and hence your counter notice is NOT Perjury.

So please go ahead and send them a counter notice and your videos will be back online in 14 days

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 21 Dec 2013, 01:50

vichu1947 wrote: When you say in the counter notice that the material has been wrongly flagged as copyrighted by Jaya TV, what we are saying is one or more of the below:

1) Jaya TV does not have the rights - it may mean, the artists have the rights and not Jaya TV OR the total content is out of copyright. The copyright of lyrics has expired long back, the copyright to the tune of the kritis has expired long back, the ragas have been there in existence for centuries and hence not copyrighted and so on.

2) Jaya TV does not have the rights - it may mean, the content uploaded comes under "fair use". Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 says the below:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If you look at points 1 and 4, clearly you have a case. You did not exploit it commercially and make money. And because of your upload, there is no effect on the market value of the video. In other words, because you uploaded Jaya TV did not loose any money as it was never released commercially by Jaya TV.

Based on the above points, you can say that the material is NOT copyrighted and hence your counter notice is NOT Perjury.

So please go ahead and send them a counter notice and your videos will be back online in 14 days

First of all, I know that you are only trying to help, so I don't mean any offense with the following. With all due respect, I doubt your understanding of copyright issues if you are giving the above justification for the DMCA counter. If you try arguing that a network does not own the rights to its own broadcast, you will, quite literally, be laughed out of court. This is just plain bad advice... If it were me, I would not take it, but the choice is, of course, Sri. Venkatakailasam's.

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 21 Dec 2013, 08:19

A revisit:-
http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=95

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Dec 2013, 10:38

mahavishnu wrote:I attended one of the Jaya TV events this year. The kind of policing done by Manimaran and his strong-armed subordinates at the event was downright graceless. I really wish that they did not have to resort to this kind of tactic.

But... was it any worse than you might expect at a musical event in America?

Is this just a case of welcome to the modern world?

It can be pointed out, for ever, that the Grateful Dead model has worked, for them, extremely well --- but this is something that doesn't seem to be accepted even by many other rock/pop/light/modern artists.

irst of all, I know that you are only trying to help, so I don't mean any offense with the following. With all due respect, I doubt your understanding of copyright issues if you are giving the above justification for the DMCA counter. If you try arguing that a network does not own the rights to its own broadcast, you will, quite literally, be laughed out of court. This is just plain bad advice...

He is right. The copyright in the material has nothing to do with it: it could be a recitation or chant hundreds, or even thousands of years old but there is still copy/performance rights in the specific performance. If you consider the capital and expenses required to put a group of people in a studio and make a recording of a performance, whether for sale as a recording, or for broadcast, then it might not seem unreasonable that this should be the case.

If you buy a print of a picture by Leonardo de Vinci, you may say that that the copyright in the original painting has long since expired. However, if you photograph that print, and produce copies, which you then distribute, you are most certainly violating the copyright in the print itself which belongs to the publisher of the print. I worked in that business for 16 years, and I know this to be an unarguable fact.

I have not worked in the music industry, and there are performing rights as well as copyrights, which complicates the whole issue and moves it well outside my experience, but I have no doubt that, however old the song, and whoever the singer, the rights in a TV broadcast belong to the TV station. You cannot argue that that the artist might have retained some rights --- unless you have the paper in your hand showing that to be the case.

Leave out all the personal aspects: the convenience, the service to fellow rasikas, forum friendships, profit or no profit. We have to put that aside when looking at a legal question. If it is challenged, I see no legal defence to uploading either concert recordings or TV broadcasts without specific permission.

The only possible one might be that it has been tolerated for an extended period of time. I don't think that will wash ...but I'm not a lawyer. Just a guy whose job used to include certain aspects of copyright.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 21 Dec 2013, 13:25

Just like how JayaTV conducts these MMU concerts for eventual broadcast on TV, a time will come when the same can be done for exclusive broadcasting over youtube. It can be Live plus immediate archive, just like what parivadini is doing. The rights belong to whoever organizes it for the express purpose of broadcasting over youtube ( just like JayaTV owns the rights to MMU broadcasts ). The main difference is this issue of whether something on one medium can be put on youtube etc. does not even arise since youtube is the medium. They can earn advertising revenues in perpetuity.

I do not think that is too far away. What parivadini is doing this year is a great first step towards that. What I am envisioning is a natural evolution from that.

Yet another day will come when some TV channel will ask permission from such an youtube organizer to broadcast that show on their channel. This is already happening in audio podcasts. Some radio stations are rebrodcasting podcasts.

The terminology is changing too. A few years back, internet was talked about as the new media. Now people refer to the traditional media as the old media.

The Times They Are a-Changin'

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 21 Dec 2013, 13:32

The issue is quite complicated.

In case of film songs the rights are owned by the producer. He enters into agreements with all the stake holders (lyricist, composer, singers, orchestra) and this right is then sold to music companies. Any one who copies these songs is violating the rights. Radio station and TV channels have to pay for broadcasting the song. Now if the same troupe with same singers performs the song in a live show , will it be called a violation? or if a different music troupe performs this song will it be called a violation?.

In case of CM, the situation is still more ambiguous. If the artists are payed to perform then copy right must rest with the organiser unless specificaly agreed otherwise. I remember that AIR used to broadcast live from MA in 90s. One of the senior artists then objected to MA saying that what he is being paid for is only for performing in the hall and if the program will be aired or recorded, he needs to be paid extra. MA stopped live broadcast since.

In the absence of any specific clause in the agreement (if any) between the sabha and the performers, is the sabha authorised to release the recording either commercially or in public domain?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Dec 2013, 15:10

If the artists are payed to perform then copy right must rest with the organiser unless specificaly agreed otherwise.

Are you sure?

With pictures, the copyright is a separate property to the original and is not sold with it unless specifically agreed, and IIIRC, that must be written.

If you buy an original painting, you do not buy the right to publish or reproduce it.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 21 Dec 2013, 15:38

What can happen if the matter is left with out any action..

What is the position regarding recording radio concerts and sharing..how copy right is infringed?

recording from public dominion like radio concerts should also violate copyright..

The sad part of this is disappointment to regular viewers..
There are nearly 2400+ videos uploaded by me...2400 people have subscribed and the total views was around 30.7 lakhs as per the statics provided by YT
kamakotisankara's uploads are also same and his subscribers are around 5000...views are around 37 lakhs..
Shri TVG is also affected, even though much smaller...

It is a good thing they have taken over from this year..Still the viewers have lost many old uploads...It is rather painful..

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Dec 2013, 15:43

The situation with radio, as far as my understanding goes, is the same as with TV. There are rights in the broadcast.

recording from public dominion like radio concerts

Why would you think that a radio concert is necessarily public domain? Almost certainly, it isn't.

Remember: it is not the recording (for yourself) that is the problem --- or there would not be a huge market in domestic recording equipment. It is publishing the recording that is the problem.

YouTube contains a huge amount of copyright material. Sometimes I like to explore for the music of my childhood and my not-so-child-hood. Mostly I find what I'm looking for. But just because something is there does not mean that the person who put it there had a legal right to do so.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 21 Dec 2013, 15:57

Does it mean that what is uploaded at SP ARCHIVES ARE ALSO attract violation of rights..as most of them are from radio recordings..

There is a general understanding now is only what is..contained in albums are commercial..

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Dec 2013, 16:12

I may be wrong about the terms on which any particular radio station broadcasts. Better information than mine is needed!

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 21 Dec 2013, 18:21

Nick H wrote:
Are you sure?

With pictures, the copyright is a separate property to the original and is not sold with it unless specifically agreed, and IIIRC, that must be written.

If you buy an original painting, you do not buy the right to publish or reproduce it.

No I am not sure and I am not knowledgeable in this issue. It is something I re collected from what I had read elsewhere.

Are there any specific laws relating to copy rights over performances where neither the lyrics nor the tune or the raga belongs to the performer

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 21 Dec 2013, 19:22

rajumds wrote:The issue is quite complicated.

In case of film songs the rights are owned by the producer. He enters into agreements with all the stake holders (lyricist, composer, singers, orchestra) and this right is then sold to music companies. Any one who copies these songs is violating the rights. Radio station and TV channels have to pay for broadcasting the song. Now if the same troupe with same singers performs the song in a live show , will it be called a violation? or if a different music troupe performs this song will it be called a violation?.

In case of CM, the situation is still more ambiguous. If the artists are payed to perform then copy right must rest with the organiser unless specificaly agreed otherwise. I remember that AIR used to broadcast live from MA in 90s. One of the senior artists then objected to MA saying that what he is being paid for is only for performing in the hall and if the program will be aired or recorded, he needs to be paid extra. MA stopped live broadcast since.

In the absence of any specific clause in the agreement (if any) between the sabha and the performers, is the sabha authorised to release the recording either commercially or in public domain?

Not entirely true, Sri. rajumds. The copyright rests with the producer of the work only if the contract specifically stipulates that "the work was made for hire". Most studio recording contracts (film included) typically say this, including TV network broadcasts.

For regular CM kutcheris, as far as I know, this is absolutely not the case. Therefore, the performance rights still rest with the artists. So, the sabha cannot claim rights over the concert.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 21 Dec 2013, 19:29

venkatakailasam wrote: There is a general understanding now is only what is..contained in albums are commercial..

That is, simply put, a wrong understanding. Being sold commercially has nothing to do with copyright.

Sri. Venkatakailasam, as I said before, it is indeed unfortunate that this has happened. My speculation about what must have happened to your account is that JayaTV must have raised a DMCA complaint over "multiple" videos. You Tube has a policy that if the same account holder receives multiple copyright violations against him/her (three strike rule), the entire account is suspended and not just those specific videos removed.

vichu1947 · Post by **vichu1947** » 21 Dec 2013, 22:57

If you try arguing that a network does not own the rights to its own broadcast, you will, quite literally, be laughed out of court

Firstly, Unless one sees what the agreement is between Jaya TV and the artists, we can not assume that Jaya TV has the rights. Perhaps Jaya TV has only broadcasting rights but not copyright. Usually this depends on the remuneration paid. If the artist is sufficiently compensated, the artists would have agreed to give away their copyright to Jaya TV.

Secondly something is not copyrighted if it comes under fair use. And for fair use the law clearly looks for 4 factors . Of the 4 factors , 3 are in favour of Venkatakailasam, namely:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Venkatakailasam has used it in a non commercial , not for profit nature. (I saw VijayR saying commercial or non-commercial has nothing to do with copyright, which is a not necessarily true for fair use)

2) the nature of the copyrighted work
You have a stronger case of fair use if you copy the material from a published work than an unpublished work. Sinc ethe video has been published already by Jaya TV, the case is stronger.

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work

There is a fifth factor - Are you Good or Bad. When you review fair use cases, you may find that they sometimes contradict one another or conflict with the rules expressed in this chapter. Fair use involves subjective judgments and are often affected by factors such as a judge or jury’s personal sense of right or wrong and their opinion about you based on your intention

Now these are not my own interpretations. These are in black and white in various credible sites (such as http://fairuse.stanford.edu/) and I have only quoted relevant sentences.

If I were Venkatakailasam , I would file a counter notice.

To prove my point on fair use, I am planning to open a youtube account post some Jaya TV MMU concerts clips and will wait for Jaya TV to file a "take down" notice.

And I will file a counter notice to restore the videos

Let us see if Jaya TV files a law suit in USA courts against Youtube to stop the restoration of videos. That will test the "fair use" clause in this case.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Dec 2013, 23:11

Firstly, Unless one sees what the agreement is between Jaya TV and the artists, we can not assume that Jaya TV has the rights. Perhaps Jaya TV has only broadcasting rights but not copyright.

You confuse right to broadcast with rights in the specific broadcast. The TV company can absolutely certainly be assumed to have the rights in their broadcast, because they made it.

Law --- every tiny word counts!

rupavathi · Post by **rupavathi** » 21 Dec 2013, 23:30

vichu1947 wrote:If I were Venkatakailasam , I would file a counter notice.

To prove my point on fair use, I am planning to open a youtube account post some Jaya TV MMU concerts clips and will wait for Jaya TV to file a "take down" notice.

And I will file a counter notice to restore the videos

Let us see if Jaya TV files a law suit in USA courts against Youtube to stop the restoration of videos. That will test the "fair use" clause in this case.

Sir, if you have so much time and energy at your disposal, why not start your own sabha, organize a few concerts, video record everything and put up the stuff on your own youtube channel? Why pick a futile battle over the fruits of someone else's time, effort, energy and dedication? #:-s