Copyright shocker on Thyagaraja kritis

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 25 Jun 2014, 06:37

Copyright shocker on Thyagaraja kritis ..

Notices issued to video channels on YouTube for uploading Carnatic music rendition of compositions of saint Thyagaraja

A spate of copyright-violation notices issued to video channels on YouTube for uploading Carnatic music rendition of compositions of saint Thyagaraja, has raised the hackles of musicians and fans of the art form.

An online petition has now been launched asking YouTube to initiate a discussion on the matter, which musicians feel strike at the heart of the art form.

More at:

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday ... 146270.ece

Lalitha Ram, one of the co-founders of Parivadini, says that it was bizarre that anyone could claim copyright for compositions of Thyagaraja

kssr · Post by **kssr** » 25 Jun 2014, 10:02

There is a facebook signature campaign initiated by parivadini against the blocking of thyagaraja kritis in youtube. I do not know how effective such campaigns are and if youtube takes note of this. I have signed it anyhow.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 25 Jun 2014, 11:16

The link to the petition is here :

http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/y ... atic-music

The way the petition works is that You Tube will get an email after each signature.
There are so far 799 signatures to my petition. Please sign it if you haven't done so. ☺

There have been separate threads on this issue a few months ago.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 25 Jun 2014, 12:17

Read this thread :
http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 25#p256266

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 25 Jun 2014, 12:46

What does the law say?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4U09Us53to

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 25 Jun 2014, 12:50

Can you curb artistic freedom in the name of copyright? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKX4_X343Rk

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 25 Jun 2014, 18:38

Reached 1001 "signatures!
Many leading musicians have signed. See their names and comments here:
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/y ... atic-music

Can someone tell me a name and a phone number to call at You Tube please? Thanks!

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2014, 20:44

"Mountain View 1?"

)

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 25 Jun 2014, 22:49

RSachi - why is this YouTube's fault? YouTube is correct in enforcing the law - if something has a copyright, it has to be respected. The issue here is not YouTube, but the ones that granted these copyrights to Sa Re Ga Ma and whatever in the first place: We need to go after these guys who granted the copyright - clearly, they do not seem to have even the IQ God gave a banana*, but thankfully stupidity is not a valid defence, and I am hopeful that this can be taken care of at the very source.

*: Or, maybe they are one neuron short of a seizure (since you need a minimum of 2 for that).

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 25 Jun 2014, 23:44

Ravi,
You're absolutely right. This issue is caused by faulty implementation by IPRS.org in India. But we are trying to bring pressure on them via You Tube, failing which we need to litigate.

The three key steps of this copyright wrongdoing are:
1. labels pay money to IPRS and use IPRS to stake copyright claims on compositions and even ragas.
2. You Tube uses technology to match new uploads and strike/flag for copyright violation vs. the listed claims. Their technology is good enough to match a new, faster/slower keyboard version of an item vs an MSS or MDR voice in the original. They do not go only by meta tags or ID tags.
3. When the uploader responds that the current upload is NOT a pirated track but a new rendering/recording, IPRS and their label members are contacted by You Tube and given the final authority on You Tube to stake their claim or release their claim for the copyright violation=strike.

You Tube can and will pull down an uploader with all their past uploads etc. after 3 such unilateral strikes.

As a consequence, lots of uploaders and musicians now feel harassed and discouraged to produce and share new recordings.

We need to fix step 3 and step 1 legally. But the issue always surfaces via step 2. Hence the petition to You Tube.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2014, 00:37

rshankar wrote:RSachi - why is this YouTube's fault?

Because Youtube is somply takiing the word of the claimant. No check to title is made.

YouTube is correct in enforcing the law

Not really, becasue

- if something has a copyright, it has to be respected.

True. But when there is no copyright?

The issue here is not YouTube, but the ones that granted these copyrights to Sa Re Ga Ma and whatever in the first place:

Nobody did. Nobody could have done. Thyagaraja died far too long ago.

We need to go after these guys who granted the copyright

They don't exist. We need to go after the people who pretend to own copyrights and the people that accept those pretences

This is not actually a question of copyright: it is a question of fatuous claims to copyright, and their blind acceptance.

NB: This is talking about the works of Thiagaraja, not those of any contemporary or recently deceased composer/lyricist.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 26 Jun 2014, 00:53

Thank you for that explanation, Sachi - makes sense.

So IPRS.org and its officers need to targeted...anyone know anyone there??? And Venkat and Gamakam need to take some special ed teachers with them to that meeting - to get the point across to them in a way that even they can understand.

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 26 Jun 2014, 01:00

I too think the petition is probably misdirected. YouTube is a private company, and is more afraid of DMCA litigation than a few thousand customers being annoyed with it. We should direct the petition to IPRS, or someone in India should take legal action against it for spurious copyright claims. The same should apply directly to the record labels on behalf of whom IPRS is making these cliams - first petition them, then sue them.

- Sreenadh

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 26 Jun 2014, 04:05

So now that we are all briefed up to a level of understanding on the issue, let me also add that
1. Since Jan. my conversations and correspondence have earned me some good friends among musical and legally educated people
2. I find lawyers famously reluctant to pursue this matter, pretty much saying why muddy the waters etc.
3. Musicians and their heirs are NOT bothered about copyright but their own income
4.IPRS and labels are entrenched in their for-profit and anti-webcast stance
5. I wonder why I am crazy enough to pursue this subject.
If you tell me that this is a lost and hopeless cause and would I still waste time and money and perhaps goodwill among the pious-speaking, I wouldn't be able to answer you.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 26 Jun 2014, 04:14

I signed the petition, but I see there is point in Sreenadh's view point and a two pronged appeal will be good.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 26 Jun 2014, 04:35

Ok, petitioning or discussing with IPRS presupposes they wish to change the law or its interpretation.

According to me that is not true because they are simply a profit-making club=association of labels (=fee-paying members!) and interpret the copyright laws to their own advantage only. If in doubt please read their detailed response to Parivadini posted in one of the links shared here.

Why I think You Tube is important: by its global reach and free access, both Google and Google-owned You Tube have assumed a far bigger role than a simple for-profit label or broadcaster. They want to be seen to be fair and neutral and working for common good. They will be happy to avoid getting a lot of people to be upset. That too in far-off IP-weak India. My trouble is their systems do not encourage human interaction...they have canned computer responses to everything!! How I wish I could talk this over with a You Tube guy with authority, and then decide what to do next.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 26 Jun 2014, 08:39

While this is very concerning, I do not want to participate in this without first knowing WHO IS THE CLAIMANT?

I think that Youtube should very clearly tell at least those whose videos have been removed every detail they know about the claimant -- and they should themselves be knowing enough about the claimant to be able to bring about legal proceedings against them for a bogus claim. Without knowing as much, they should not have honoured their claim.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 26 Jun 2014, 09:35

Srikant,
If I want to copyright a kriti, I need to do following :
1.pay money and become a member of IPRS.org
2. Provide digital data of my track and all meta data (composition details and performance details)
3. IPRS provides this data to YT
YT doesn't do any checks on this. The algorithm takes over from that point.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 26 Jun 2014, 13:09

Doesn't IPRS have any "KYC" norms? Doesn't youtube?

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 26 Jun 2014, 13:13

Not that I know of.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 26 Jun 2014, 13:23

Looks like IPRS do have some! http://www.iprs.org/cms/Membership/Memb ... ments.aspx

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2014, 13:28

Rsachi, I appreciate your stand and vigour. I only argue nitpicking points because I think it is important to get them right...

Nobody can "copyright a kriti," unless they are its author. What they can do is to claim copyright. Think of it like land grabbing: the title was never there, but somebody is actively claiming it, and taking steps to protect that claim, even against the rightful owner.

What does YouTube do when they receive such a notification for the works of Beethoven or Mozart? Are Western classical composers built into the algorithm, I wonder --- or does some human say, "absurd," and bin the thing? If that is what happens, then the big thing is for Youtube to be educated about big names, in other musical cultures, who died 150 years ago. It may be that they are just ignorant --- although, I wonder how far one has to look in the google/youtube offices before meeting a South-Indian face.

I think that you are absolutely right that YouTube needs to be pressured on this.

The situation of the Indian companies and agencies is an entirely different one, because they can hardly be ignorant of the dates involved: it is their culture, their background, but, above all, their job to know. Pressure does need to be applied to them too. I don't know how --- except that they can. for starters, be added to any partition.

Just like traffic on the roads, the law does not need to be changed, it needs to be enforced. Could it be that nothing short of the courts can bring the pressure? I forget the name of the activist who keeps going to court over road issues, except that he has become known as Traffic _____ . Does anybody have the time, and the money (and courage too) to become Music ____ ?

rajeshnat · Post by **rajeshnat** » 26 Jun 2014, 13:51

Just to build a more stronger case , I would request the artist sathwa srinath (flautist whose O rangasayi was pulled down) to write a strong rejoinder in both the hindu comments and also in the change.org website .After all despite her consent her reach is pulled down. We are there for you vidushi Sathwa Srinath.

I do know there is atleast one rasikas.org rasika who work in google USA who can reach out to right offices - after all a standard reply from google does not help . From my part i will send a private mail to that person.

Srikanth1987,
The no of members is 3582. Looks one organization associated to CM is there , I dont see any names of CM artists , looks lot of them are camouflaging with another name. They are the CLAIMANTS. Check this url http://www.iprs.org/cms/Membership/Members.aspx

Rsachi,
Appreciate all you do.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 26 Jun 2014, 14:03

You require a PAN / Passport / Memorandum of Association / Partnership Deed / Death Certificate + whateverelse to get something copyrighted on IPRS. That would make camouflaging with another name difficult.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2014, 14:20

to get something copyrighted on IPRS.

Please somebody correct me if I am wrong, or I will spend eternity repeating myself! :-s

Performing Rights Societies do not copyright anything. They collect fees and enforce the rights of their members. They are not a copyright authority.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 26 Jun 2014, 15:28

Srikant, I thought you meant antecedents of the item copyright... I am yet to know how they verify that.
Nick, I received links to many such similar strikes for Western music too. Like Mendelssohn Wedding March by a live band played at a wedding and uploaded on YT was "struck" down. This content ID issue is ballooning big time for YT.

Nick the copyright vests in the creation. iprs.org is the go-to body to enforce it for its members.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2014, 20:54

Rsachi wrote:Nick, I received links to many such similar strikes for Western music too. Like Mendelssohn** Wedding March by a live band played at a wedding and uploaded on YT was "struck" down. This content ID issue is ballooning big time for YT.

At least it is general stupidity rather than specific ignorance, then. Not that that is any better.

Nick the copyright vests in the creation. iprs.org is the go-to body to enforce it for its members.

The copyright vests in the creator, their heirs or assignees until it expires. It's been over 150 years: there is no copyright for IPRS to enforce --- for anyone. This has nothing to do with copyrights in a recording.

There may be one or two artists that are under a contract to a recording company. They tend to know that, and would not agree to other recordings/broadcasts.

**Also died in 1847. Did you know, or is this just a coincidence!

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 26 Jun 2014, 22:31

Not that I want to be an apologist for IPRS, but if we want to accomplish something, we need to understand where the problem is coming from. On the general principle of "don't attribute malice when incompetence would do", could it be something like this?

1. Recording companies copyright a specific rendition of a krithi that they commission an artist to produce.
2. IPRS sends the digital data to YouTube
3. YouTube feeds data to its algorithm, which is powerful enough to identify variants of the music in different voices or instruments.
4. All hell breaks loose as the algorithm identifies thousands of infringments, issues notices, and sends details to IPRS
5. IPRS is deluged by counterclaims. Since their primary business is to make money for their paying members, they may have just one or two low level employees reviewing these claims.
6. IPRS takes months to review the claims.
7. After the 10 day or whatever period, YouTube pulls the video

If this is the case, who should we beat upon? Perhaps targeting YouTube, at least for education, is the best approach after all ..

- Sreenadh

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 26 Jun 2014, 22:40

Ok. Now here is a good Copyright 101 from the US Embassy, New Delhi.
Link:
http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/mobile//i ... ights.html

I quote relevant portions:

Introduction to Copyright

Copyright is a form of protection provided to the creators of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. This law for the first time accorded exclusive rights to authors and limited the duration of such exclusive rights to a certain number of years, after which all works would pass into the public domain.

Ordinarily the author is the first owner of copyright in a work.
Who is an author?

There are different authors for different kinds of work. In the case of a literary or dramatic work the person who creates the work is the author. In the case of a musical composition it's the composer.

The Copyright Office in India falls under the Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings.

Works protected under the copyright laws

Original Literary works
Original Dramatic works
Original Musical works
Original Artistic works
Cinematographic films
Sound recordings.

The general copyright term of protection in India is for the life of the author plus 60 years. In the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings, photographs, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of government and works of international organizations, the copyright term last 60 years from the calendar year following the year of publication.

Performer's Rights

Performer's Rights are the special rights of a performer i.e. an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture or any other person who makes a performance i.e. a visual or acoustic presentation made live by the performer. With regard to his/her performance, the performer has the exclusive right to:

make a sound recording or visual recording of the performance;
reproduce the sound recording or visual recording of the performance;
broadcast the performance;
communicate the performance to the public otherwise than by broadcast.

If any person does any of the aforementioned act, without the consent of the performer and during the continuance of the performer's right in relation to any performance, that act is an infringement of the performer's rights. However, if a performer has consented for incorporation of his/her performance in a cinematograph film, he shall have not have any performer's rights to that particular performance. The performer's rights subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the performance is made.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 26 Jun 2014, 22:44

rajeshnat wrote:Just to build a more stronger case , I would request the artist sathwa srinath (flautist whose O rangasayi was pulled down) to write a strong rejoinder in both the hindu comments and also in the change.org website .After all despite her consent her reach is pulled down. We are there for you vidushi Sathwa Srinath.

Record labels pay obscene amount for a recording (aprox something like Rs. 26,000 per artist per studio hour for a recording + royalty) as a start up one can never match that! Secondly it does not make sense for an artist to go against a label unless they are 1)Extremely confident about their skill 2) Absolutely mad 3)Music is not their main profession.

I dont think it is fair to ask artists to join in this, i think as rasikas it is our duty, this is our battle just a coincidence that artists stands to gain out of this if things work out well. We are breaking our head on how to evolve a win-win for all stakeholders hopefully we come out with something. The news is there is documentary evidence that about 116 krithis are INDEED COPYRIGHTED with a Kolkatta,Park Street address( I can personally vouch as a witness) we should be getting our RTI response on the complete list by end of the month. No point in blaming the labels,blame the system by which folks had the audacity to own public treasure and technology process by which they can get away with such a murder!!

Cheers
Venkat

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 26 Jun 2014, 22:46

A quick google search shows that many people are upset about this, not just us. See YouTube's response in this Forbes article from Dec.2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... t-thickens

I like how the article ends:

...
Ultimately, Google is flexing its muscle here, relying on its huge chunk of market share in online video to get away with whatever it pleases. But with policies like this, how long will that market dominance last?
...
Transitioning away from YouTube will be difficult and costly for many of the users currently impacted by Content ID. But it also seems inevitable without a drastic change in YouTube policy. Perhaps someday it will all be for the best, with a much-diminished YouTube and a proliferation of other, higher quality and less impersonal sites taking its place.

Hubris often comes just before the fall.

Looks like a good business opportunity for a Carnatic Music Video startup company!

- Sreenadh

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 26 Jun 2014, 23:08

ShrutiLaya wrote:A quick google search shows that many people are upset about this, not just us. See YouTube's response in this Forbes article from Dec.2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... t-thickens

looks like a good business opportunity for a Carnatic Music Video startup company!

- Sreenadh

True we have had significant gain in our "valuation",we owe it to the rasikas and we will work out a way by which we can give it back to where the value enhancement happened. Open to crazy ideas like rasika stock options!!

Cheers
Venkat

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 27 Jun 2014, 00:00

I mean, forget about YouTube and have your own servers to stream the video; Have Parivadini become the YouTube of CM by allowing users to upload their own concerts etc., Of course, I don't know about the costs and the economics of this - It will be hard to get anyone to pay for this service. I have enough experience of that trying to get people to pay for real (live) concerts. So for the moment, it's probably a pipe dream!

- Sreenadh

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 27 Jun 2014, 05:07

Since I have often commented about copyright issues on this forum (and have even been accused of being a copyright troll), I feel compelled to add some more verbiage here. I have spent many hours reading about the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 (and the recent amendment of 2012) and also the DMCA (which YouTube falls under, because the site is based in the USA).

1. YouTube is simply covering its behind - any mistakes and they will become ineligible for the "safe harbor" clause of the DMCA (which protects them from any liability for users uploading copyrighted content), opening them up to lawsuits. To them, the risk of upsetting thousands (ok, generously, tens of thousands) of users is absolutely nothing compared to the threat of even one single lawsuit (which will open the floodgates). As is typical in this case, they end up being overcautious and overzealous in implementing this. It is not just YouTube... most other online service providers are also this cautious. Statistics say that over 60% of all takedown notices (filed by so-called copyright owners) are false/flawed. Yet, YouTube will not take any chances on this.

2. When the poster of the content issues a counter-notice challenging the copyright, he/she does so under "penalty of perjury" (i.e., lying under oath). It is amazing, however, that the person claiming the copyright is not doing so under penalty of perjury. So, making false claims has no consequences, whatsoever! If a counter-notice is issued, challenging the copyright, the person claiming copyright has 14 days to sue the poster of the content. The DMCA says that if no suit is filed in 14 days, YouTube is allowed to restore the content without any legal implications for it. However, this gets trumped / overridden by the YouTube terms of service (which anyone who uses the site has to agree to). Here is a snippet from the terms of service:

"If a counter-notice is received by the Copyright Agent, YouTube may send a copy of the counter-notice to the original complaining party informing that person that it may replace the removed Content or cease disabling it in 10 business days. Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the Content provider, member or user, the removed Content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at YouTube's sole discretion."

So, Youtube is basically using its Terms of Service (that you agreed to) to refuse the restoration of content. Why are YouTube's terms like this? They have contracts with music companies and labels (see https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en) that lets them avoid the counter-notification process. So, those of you who still believe Google's slogan of "Don't be evil", please contact me - I have a bridge to sell you.

3. DMCA also requires that for it to be protected under the safe harbor clause, YouTube should penalize repeat offenders. Hence, the three strikes policy of YouTube.Now, a strike is only supposed to take place if a copyright violation is confirmed (i.e., no counter-notice is filed, or a lawsuit has been brought by the claimant). However, YouTube places a strike on your account as soon as someone claims copyright on a video you have posted (and as mentioned above, one can claim copyright without any consequences if it is false). Usually it is "innocent until proven guilty", but here it is "guilty until proven innocent" - not only that, using the contractual obligations, YouTube will not even allow you to prove that you are innocent. How is that for "don't be evil"?

Unfortunately, there is no recourse for the user against YouTube's actions. By using YouTube, you agreed to the terms of service (which is a contract between YouTube and you). A minor (from their perspective) outrage about this in India is not going to make YouTube change its terms of service or take any risks with the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

The only option is to file a lawsuit against the company claiming copyright that they are abusing Indian copyright law and have caused you unfair hardship by claiming incorrect copyright. Just like a patent can be challenged in court, so can a copyright... In the case of the CM labels, the legal way forward is to challenge the copyright of these labels in court. All it will take is one Nalli or one Obul Reddy or other such resourceful genuine CM well-wisher to bring these labels to their knees. Unfortunately, I also think that it is pretty much the only way. All the other talk is nothing but a vain attempt at bravado. My apologies if this sounds overly cynical, but in my humble opinion, it is just being pragmatic.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 27 Jun 2014, 05:15

Let me also add that the labels simply have *no* case. They are only banking on the fact that they have more money and/or arm-twisting capability than others. If they encounter a person or group where the above two assumptions are not true (which is not easy and perhaps non-existent), watch how they fold.

If there is one modern composer whose compositions appear on the CDs of any of the CM labels, he/she will be the biggest asset to put the fear of God into the labels. The composer (or someone else, as their official authorized agent) can contact the label that they are going to sue the label for violating their copyright and using their songs without consent. Just watch the fun after that.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 27 Jun 2014, 08:43

An insightful article by musician/lawyer S.A.Karthik: http://spicyip.com/2014/06/guest-post-w ... ts-cm.html

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 27 Jun 2014, 09:05

VijayaR,
Strangely enough, there is one composer here whose two CDs have record company labels. Permission was not given to play any songs from the first CD (as a matter of fact from all the CDs that the company produced)! The other company has posed no problem in airing them.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 27 Jun 2014, 09:22

I have also contacted the editor of the spicyip blog to find out the best legal recourse. Karthik's article is indeed timely and we had a discussion on this about 5 months ago.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 27 Jun 2014, 09:46

QUIZ QUESTION

This one is for smart people like Venkat.

Why did the IPRS content ID database pick up a match of only the Lahari recording of O Rangashayi? After all there are umpteen records with all the usual suspects. Here is a snapshot from good old Raaga, which has SSI, Vedavalli Mami, Santhanam and Sheratalai....

So who gets to claim the copyright on a composition? First come first served or what? Why are others not protesting? Who paid whom and when? What's going on?

O Rangashayi, please clarify. As the saint says you may be happily resting in Vaikuntha on the docile snake as he's busy drinking ksheera from the sagara, but here there are spurious copyright snakes in the grass biting us.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 27 Jun 2014, 09:54

second QUIZ QUESTION

what if some creative youngster sings "Why this kolaveri di" in the manodharma round of Naad Bhed ( "raga, Pallavi or anupallavi, niraval and swaras, please, and be within six minutes, work hard, sing with akaarams, and you have a good voice and a bright future!") and someone uploads the recording on You Tube, which company will claim copyright? What will Thalaiva have to say on this? Will DMK and AIADMK make political capital of this? Will Modi intervene? Will Hillary comment?

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 27 Jun 2014, 12:36

ShrutiLaya wrote:

I mean, forget about YouTube and have your own servers to stream the video; Have Parivadini become the YouTube of CM by allowing users to upload their own concerts etc., Of course, I don't know about the costs and the economics of this - It will be hard to get anyone to pay for this service. I have enough experience of that trying to get people to pay for real (live) concerts. So for the moment, it's probably a pipe dream!

- Sreenadh

The fact is that we were completely sold by the ease of cloud. (it is dead cheap aswell for eg all these 600 videos even on say an amazon will cost us a few hundred dollars a year).We chose you tube since it was the most prevalent. We are working very hard on trying to improve the quality of our output,hardware etc et. The raison d etre of Parivadini was/is to give away good quality concerts for free,and ensure that an archive is documented & maintained. I dont think we will have a change on that vision.
Very soon we are launching some cool stuff like raga&song search,audio search,hum the tune for the raga kind of stuff! This would be on our website.
What we need to figure out is ways by which we can creatively monetize so that we can remain free for ever and at the same time be self-sustaining not depending on external largess.
Thanks for your support
Venkat

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jun 2014, 16:15

Rsachi wrote:
So who gets to claim the copyright on a composition? First come first served or what? Why are others not protesting? Who paid whom and when? What's going on?

Who gets to claim the copyright when there is and can be no copyright? Anybody who feels like it, apparently.

Rsachi, I still feel that you are confused between copyright in a composition and copyright in a performance or recording. If you photograph a cave painting that is tens of thousands of years old, the copyright in that photograph is yours, but you don't get to acquire any rights in the cave paintings.

what if some creative youngster sings "Why this kolaveri di" in the manodharma round of Naad Bhed

[[[ excepting that TV programs, etc are almost certainly going to have agreements with IPRS, and if they don't, that is their problem...]]] It will be an infringment of the copyright in the lyric, and it will probably be an adaptation of the music, so infringement there too.

and someone uploads the recording on You Tube, which company will claim copyright?

The TV company, probably, for the infringement of rights in their broadcast by the person putting it on youtube. They will be right to do so. The owners of the rights in the song may do so too.

Stay focussed. it is about music composed so long ago that it it is in the public domain. Nobody can claim the copyright, because it does not exist. Anybody that claims, or registers in any way, with any organisation, such ownership, is not justified.

The next step in the conversation, for us, is not kids singing film songs on the TV, but the question of how all this applies to contemporary composers.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 27 Jun 2014, 17:02

On the television front a fellow streaming start up in the US got hit by the Supreme Court Order yesterday,the plug was pulled.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 27 Jun 2014, 17:27

parivadini wrote:On the television front a fellow streaming start up in the US got hit by the Supreme Court Order yesterday,the plug was pulled.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

Venkatji: Sorry, but Aereo is completely different and the case was about something else. Aereo, as you know, lets you rent a (micro) antenna sitting in their facility in another city. The antenna will pick up over-the-air TV broadcasts in that city and they will re-transmit (stream) it to the user sitting in other areas. The US supreme court ruled that they are re-broadcasting the networks' content and, hence, need to pay the re-broadcasting fee. Since they did not, it was a violation of broadcaster's right (which is covered by the copyright laws). I understand that you were only making a "high-level" comparison, but still...

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 27 Jun 2014, 17:33

arasi wrote:VijayaR,
Strangely enough, there is one composer here whose two CDs have record company labels. Permission was not given to play any songs from the first CD (as a matter of fact from all the CDs that the company produced)! The other company has posed no problem in airing them.

Arasi: let me just say that unless the work was produced "for hire" and you explicitly signed away your copyrights, you have the power to make the labels hop around uncomfortably.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 27 Jun 2014, 17:59

Nick,
I am not confused at all about composer's right and performer's right. What has failed is my attempt at humour.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jun 2014, 22:37

Oh, sorry, Rsachi. Communication failure takes two: must have been my failure at getting it too. Does anybody else find that too much internet causes sense-of-humour failure? Seems to happen to me too often these days!

I'll try harder next time

rupavathi · Post by **rupavathi** » 27 Jun 2014, 22:49

parivadini wrote: What we need to figure out is ways by which we can creatively monetize so that we can remain free for ever and at the same time be self-sustaining not depending on external largess.

)

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 19 Jul 2014, 14:34

Of rights and copyright
Jul 17, 2014 - Vasumathi Badrinathan

http://www.asianage.com/music/rights-and-copyright-926

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 21 Jul 2014, 12:22

An article on Outlook http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Who ... way/291416 and many thanks to TMK for his support on this as well http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Can ... ong/291417