Copyright claims of Thyagaraja songs by recording labels

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 19 Jan 2014, 08:46

Varsha,
Interesting story that about Korea. I have spent many weeks in several trips to Korea on business. That is one country (like China, Canada etc) where almost NOBODY buys a movie DVD. EVERY movie in the world is available online in a pirated version, and people's Internet skills are measured by how easily they download and watch pirated movies.
My family and friends living in Canada have a legendary-bordering on laughable-contempt for purchasing CDs and DVDs...it seems to be an act of idiocy to them. BTW Korea is the most Internet savvy nation in the world as per studies.

Well Indians are never far behind in these matters. When Lagaan was released, I called Ashutosh Gowarikar to congratulate him. I asked him when the movie DVD would be commercially released. he told me that it would be a couple of years (they hoped people will buy tickets and see movies In a theatre) but ON THE DAY THE MOVIE WAS RELEASED IN USA, same day pirated movie DVD was readied and available in US.

The story was the same in Australia for his other success, Jodhaa Akbar. My Indian friends laughed at the idea of spending 12-15$ a movie tkt when they got the DVD pirated of course for $5.

The IPRS.Org and You a tube moves etc are acts of total desperation since even big labels like Virgin and EMI and Sony feel totally threatened by piracy. We now therefore see that Thyagaraja is claiming copyright for his song through some cheap record labels. He will be singing:
Pirated CD chaala sukhama, song-Du download sukhama!?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jan 2014, 10:17

We are not alone:
https://twitter.com/simoncozens/status/ ... 7635251200

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 19 Jan 2014, 11:09

Youtube probably hasn't learned the distinction between copying a movie and multiple performances of a musical work -- bots can only read labels. But it must be made very clear if going by the legal route that the compositions belong in the public domain.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 19 Jan 2014, 11:40

SrinathK wrote:Youtube probably hasn't learned the distinction between copying a movie and multiple performances of a musical work -- bots can only read labels. But it must be made very clear if going by the legal route that the compositions belong in the public domain.

youtube bots may be doing what you're saying, but it ain't no bot from Lahiri that's claiming ownership of viriboni and the like...

varsha · Post by **varsha** » 19 Jan 2014, 13:19

Manohar Naidu entered the music business by accident. He had been working for a cosmetics dealer, who, happy with the young man's performance, gifted him a tape recorder. Manohar Naidu saw business potential in it: he used it to record songs from a record player, and started selling his own "pre-recorded" cassettes.

That was in 1980, when record players still held sway. But the gramophone, as it was called, was being threatened by the handier cassette player, which people had started buying even in smaller cities and towns.

With Rs 500, Manohar Naidu launched his label Lahari. He identified unconventional outlets for his tapes. Bangle stores, cigarette stalls and electronic spares shops started selling his tapes.

http://www.themusicmagazine.com/manoharn.html

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jan 2014, 13:27

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 19 Jan 2014, 15:12

A request.

Whereas honestly we are overwhelmed and completely humbled by the support from the rasikas forum who have gone out of the way to come out to support(someone volunteered even to pay for the lawyer and asked bank account details,another rasika said "this is no more your battle"

). A sincere personal request is not to link political party or religion or caste or other similar attributions to this cause. I think as rasika's we have a fair claim which I am sure can be won in any court of law in the long run,however adding political and religious overtones to this might be detrimental in the long run.

As Nick's now famous edict goes - "Let us Stay Focused"
From our end we are
1. Going all out to spread this across social media
2. Sharing Sachi's cause.org message
3. Started talking to the Press
4. Will be meeting the lawyers thru this week

In all posiblities we might not have the bandwidth to sue labels however we could put up a public interest petition which does not have much cost implications and will be taken up by courts as long as there is proof of sufficient public interest (again sachi's message will be useful in that,will request for the xls detail of signees if they have no objection to be added on the PIL)

Will keep you all posted,meanwhile continue to hear our coverage.

Thanks
Venkat

This message might not be understood by all but I am sure the concerned will get it.

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 19 Jan 2014, 16:09

Singed the online petition. But there is no point in taking up the case with You tube. They are only going by law. If someone makes a claim of copy right violation, they look at both sides and if one party has a registered right , they rule in their favour.

We need to take up the issue with IPRS who seem to have given the rights to the recording companies. First IPRS is not a government entity but one registered under copy right act. We need to educate / legally challenge them about the folly. The recording companies are targeting You tube because they perceive free online music content to be a threat to business. Live performances are not a threat and are not challenging them. But legally they can bar any one from singing the pancharatna kritis in Thiruvayaru.

Are artists aware what they are getting into when they sign on the dotted lines. There has to be some association/forum of musicians who should take this up. If the carnatica team is following this thread , they can comment.

One option will be to file a PIL against IPRS for issuing copy right to CM compositions.

This link may be of interest in this issue

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 590790.ece

askn · Post by **askn** » 19 Jan 2014, 17:54

While I fully agree with the spirit of this conversation , I do want to provide a little context to this discussion so that any future course of action proceeds in the right direction.

1. The labels do not have copyright / cannot copyright most CM compositions as they are in public domain
2. Other compositions that are not in public domain , the copyright belongs to the composer ( unless the record label has specifically acquired the right from the composer )
3. The label has not made a claim of copyright against Parivadini , i.e sent them a notice etc. asking them to take down a video from the Parivadini site ( as far as I understand )
4. Only content from YouTube has been taken down
4. The YouTube Content ID system is put in place for YOUTUBE's protection , so that they are not taken to court / sued for contributory infringement. ( Google has been dealing with litigation ( Viacom vs Google ) and other threats of litigation from music & film industry organisation for many years now.
5. Some labels are mis-using the YouTube processes to take down content from YouTube.

So Parivadini or any one else who is streaming / organization an event has nothing to worry about from the labels so long as they don't use YouTube to broadcast.
Since the labels have not made a public assertion of copyright against anyone ( YouTube is a private entity ) , need to check with a lawyer whether any course of legal action exists.

Am guessing that this will need effort from different angles , including talking to the labels

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 19 Jan 2014, 20:40

askn wrote:The label has not made a claim of copyright against Parivadini , i.e sent them a notice etc. asking them to take down a video from the Parivadini site ( as far as I understand ) -

3 strikes and we are out! we are now 2 down!

Only content from YouTube has been taken down
Can be taken down.

So Parivadini or any one else who is streaming / organization an event has nothing to worry about from the labels so long as they don't use YouTube to broadcast.Since the labels have not made a public assertion of copyright against anyone ( YouTube is a private entity ) , need to check with a lawyer whether any course of legal action exists.
Am guessing that this will need effort from different angles , including talking to the labels

All the platforms which we have done as a part of our back up strategy -likes of brightcove,livestream,ustream etc etc have a Zero Tolerance on Copyright due to the threat from big labels,so it would be more like postponing our problem rather than solving it if we chose to go on to other platforms,also from networks effects point of you this would be expensive.

Cheers

askn · Post by **askn** » 19 Jan 2014, 20:50

Strongly suggest you talk to the labels with which you are facing this issue

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jan 2014, 21:04

I would suspect the big labels are simply copyright trolling (this is not uncommon) which works when you are big and you are threatening little guys (patent trolls are famous for this). Thus, unless the painpoint is applied differently (harimau's advice would apply I would think) they simply would continue and willing to say "let the court tell us otherwise, till then we will play in whatever way that is advantageous to us as the system allows for it". It does appear they are scheming the system.

Perhaps, the content platforms simply would prefer to "play it safe" and perhaps not really interested in mediating. But, if they are taking down accounts based on incorrect claims, I wonder if they could get into trouble elsewhere (like unlawful termination suits -- which they must protect against)? So maybe there perhaps is a way, or they simply make you agree to terms of service that says "we are not responsible for mediating copyright claims/violations - it is your headache" (?)

Arun

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 19 Jan 2014, 21:41

Served hot for today's concert - the pancharathna kirthanai - lets see if this is our last strike and we are out!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater
Cheers
Venkat

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 19 Jan 2014, 22:25

I have 141 guys who have signed the petition to You Tube thus far!
Good response, don't you think?
We need still more...

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 19 Jan 2014, 22:26

Parivadini, Harimau's suggestion is getting much more attractive by the minute...get a broad injunction against all holders of rights against any of these compositions...

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 19 Jan 2014, 22:29

Rsachi wrote:I have 141 guys who have signed the petition to You Tube thus far!
Good response, don't you think?
We need still more...

can you please repost the link, or can the mods please make a sticky thread for the petition?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jan 2014, 22:34

Let me try to do something about sticky

tkb · Post by **tkb** » 19 Jan 2014, 22:41

This is indeed a genuine problem and we are also on the verge of getting affected too soon on this issue! @Rsachi please let us know if there is any link and we would like to sign the petition as well.

rgds tkb

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jan 2014, 22:43

The link to Sachi's post in this thread is this; http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 75#p255968

Sachi, My initial idea was to split your post into a separate thread and make it sticky. But that is not a good idea since the rest of the conversation will be out of place.

Please open a new topic in this section and copy your post to it. I will make it sticky. Thanks.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jan 2014, 23:14

Sachi, saw your new thread http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22841.
It is now a 'sticky' topic.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 20 Jan 2014, 07:33

Parivadini, get a paper signed by the artists concerned giving you the right to broadcast their music, and send it to youtube.

Words put on paper and signed by the great and the good will matter.

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 20 Jan 2014, 15:06

Yesterdays concert claim for Dudukugala has been released by the label(the same label which said they OWN) a "good will gesture"
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

We also have been invited for a "discussion" and have been assured by a gentelmen called Mr.Ravinder Pathak at IPRS that if we forward the links to them they will release the same with youtube!

Kudos to Sachi,apparently youtube is being flooded with protest emails.

Look forward to the forums view on this.

Cheers

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 20 Jan 2014, 17:26

The Label apologized
Had an appointment with the IP Lawyer at 1630 to file petition, at 1609 they sent a mail,apology and claim withdrawl.
We owe more than just one to you all,promise we will try to repay this over time!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... to_comment

So its back to business, off to a live webcast - 2 fantastic concerts today do check it out.

Thanks all
Team Parivadini

PS: they also were not very amused with the publicity that they got is my understanding

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 20 Jan 2014, 17:29

Great to hear this outcome. Hope they inform Youtube so that this doesn't happen again!

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 20 Jan 2014, 17:55

Mohan, Parivadini, and everyone, there were until a while ago 234 signatures to my petition, and You Tube received in their copyright department 234 email messages all saying this:

Sachi R. Sachidananda started a petition "You Tube: Prevent Unfair Copyrights claims in Carnatic music" targeting you on Change.org that's starting to pick up steam.

Change.org is the world's largest petition platform that gives anyone, anywhere the tools they need to start, join and win campaigns for change. Change.org never starts petitions on our own -- petitions on the website, like "You Tube: Prevent Unfair Copyrights claims in Carnatic music", are started by users.

While "You Tube: Prevent Unfair Copyrights claims in Carnatic music" is active, you'll receive an email each time a signer leaves a comment explaining why he or she is signing. You'll also receive periodic updates about the petition's status.

Here's what you can do right now to resolve the petition:
Review the petition. Here's a link:
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/y ... atic-music
See the 232 signers and their reasons for signing on the petition page.
Respond to the petition creator by sending a message here:
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/y ... 2ba90d535d
Sincerely,
Change.org

It is quite likely that such a torrent of messages over the weekend wouldn't have amused the You Tube folks, and that would have influenced in all likelihood the IPRS folks to call up Parivadini.

Seems like we won this round, eh! =; =;

JAI HO RASIKAS.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 20 Jan 2014, 18:11

fine and fantastic..result..

askn · Post by **askn** » 20 Jan 2014, 18:42

Salute to Sachi for the initiaitive & driving this (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 20 Jan 2014, 18:44

Excellent! Thanks to sachi for taking the initiative, and thanks to all who signed the petition.

Arun

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 20 Jan 2014, 18:50

Circle of Life!

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 20 Jan 2014, 20:15

Parivadini are the champions! The true champions of a good cause. I'm sure that rasikas.org must have helped, but it it is their courage that has achieved a win.

It's just one battle, though, unless the forthcoming "discussion" achieves an unconditional acknowledgement that out-of-copyright music cannot be in copyright, and an undertaking that they will not make that mistake again in the future.

Great going!

pattamaa · Post by **pattamaa** » 20 Jan 2014, 21:48

Awesome.....wishing parivadini good luck ..... Keep good music reaching us.....

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 20 Jan 2014, 21:55

Awesome result...thank you for looping back with us.
While the collective pressure from us and others like us is sure to have influenced the outcome this time around, I'm sure the threat of filing the injunction is a good one....my mother used to say 'kOl eDuttAl dAn kurangu ADum' (a monkey will only dance if it sees a stick)...if I were to modify it, it'd be 'there's a special stick to make every monkey dance'....

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 20 Jan 2014, 21:59

__/\__ nandri hai

samarasaa · Post by **samarasaa** » 20 Jan 2014, 22:10

Great to hear the good news. Heartening to see the power of the rasika. Thanks to Sachi for turning a concerned discussion into collective and decisive action. Also thanks to Parivadini and a couple of other You Tube uploaders who sent emails and Facebook messages publicizing this issue. I think the Saregama and EMI copyright claims also need to be released... any other labels as well claiming ownership... a good week for Carnatic music!

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 20 Jan 2014, 22:12

Great stuff, Parivadini and Venkat. :ymparty:
It is wonderful to see everyone come together here in a good way. Special thanks to RSachi and others for their initiative.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 20 Jan 2014, 23:39

Awesome Indeed. Thanks Sachi for the initiative. A just victory indeed.

As others have expressed as well,
1) Venkat, please engage with them to see if IPRS can withdraw/cancel whatever they had given to the labels which the labels used with Youtube. ( or the blanket injunction method that has been talked about )
2) Just out of curiosity, it will be good to get a feel for 'What 'the heck' were the IPRS fols thinking when they approved those rights to the labels?'.
3) And for your own peace of mind, see if IPRS can provide you a list of CM compositions that the labels still have copyright on, after all trinity ones are taken care of. ( because it is less than 50 years etc. )

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 21 Jan 2014, 11:03

Update: signatures continue to pour in., latest score 303....
I don't intend to stop until YT comes back with some clear corrective response, so let's press on.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Jan 2014, 11:57

Sure. I added my sig earlier.

R.narayan.rao · Post by **R.narayan.rao** » 21 Jan 2014, 12:38

Signed yesterday

parivadini · Post by **parivadini** » 21 Jan 2014, 12:53

vasanthakokilam wrote:) Venkat, please engage with them to see if IPRS can withdraw/cancel whatever they had given to the labels which the labels used with Youtube. ( or the blanket injunction method that has been talked about )

Ravi
12:49 AM (12 hours ago)

to me
Dear Mr. Venkat,

This has reference to your mail and our subsequent telecon on the same.

We would like to inform you that IPRS administer literary and musical works on behalf of its members who are music companies/publishers, authors and composers and we only administer their literary and musical works by issue of licenses or collection of license fees or both. IPRS as such doesn’t claim any work on its own by any process as such is not responsible for any claim dispute which arises on YouTube by way of automatic process followed by YouTube or in case of manual claim by the music company/publisher.

On YouTube process of content claiming is done by an owner of right like a music company/publisher. This objective is achieved by the owners of rights by sending metadata of the content to YouTube with details of works and ownership in said works and clearly stating that literary and musical works is being administered by IPRS for the territory or manually claiming such content by the owners of right in their Content Management System or automatically with Google/YouTube automated delivery tools-CMS Uploader software and XML/SFTP deliveries, content identification tools by YouTube. As such IPRS doesn’t claim any work on YouTube directly and it is the members like music company/publishers who claim a work on YouTube resulting in royalty payment to IPRS.

Pl note that once in their metadata owners of the right state that literary and musical works are administered by IPRS in the territory YouTube as a process automatically incorporates IPRS name as an administering entity controlling said compositions. As a result whenever YouTube Content ID matches said work with their database by melody match, Audio match based on reference files submitted by owners, it raises a claim in the name of IPRS and the owner of right i.e. music company/publisher. In light of this it should be clear that any claim which is attributed to IPRS actually originates and rests with the owner of the right i.e music company/publisher and not with IPRS. As such veracity of all such claims rests with such owners of right who are in best position to claim or release any claim.

Further pl note that a sound recording created from a work which is in public domain is still governed by the copyright laws of a country. Hence a license is needed to communicate such sound recording to the public. We have been given to understand that some of the claim which was made is on account of sound recording. Also it is to be noted that copyright in published literary, musical works subsist within the lifetime of the author until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies and Fair dealing with any work is limited to purposes as covered under section 52 (1) (a) only.

However in view of your submission, on best effort basis, we can go through the claims submitted by you if you are able to send us YouTube links of such claims along with reasons of disputes. This is necessary for us to get in touch with our concern member and for YouTube team to look into said matter further for anomalies in automatic claim process if any. Pl note that in view of limited resources at our disposal it may take some time to respond to you on this matter and request for your patience on this matter.

With warm regards
ravinder

Ravinder Pathak (Mr.)
Head and Senior Manager (Radio, TV & Internet Licensing)
The Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Address: 2nd Floor, Golden Chambers, New Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W),Mumbai 400 053, India
Tel Board: +91 22 26733748-50
Mobile: +91 9820446343
Fax: +91 22 26736658
E-mail: [email protected]
Vist us at: www.iprs.org

tkb · Post by **tkb** » 21 Jan 2014, 17:33

good news and thanks for all the efforts! needs to see if this applied in general or for particular youtube channels only. Any way a great and welcome move forward!

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 22 Jan 2014, 01:48

Can someone please translate the letter from Mr. Pathak into English - or let me know if I've understood it correctly?

What I get from this note is that IPRS claims that they are merely a watchdog enforcing ownership that others (labels, producers etc.) have established. If that is correct, then at least in the case of YouTube, aren't they more than an innocent middleman in this process, as Nick has suggested in the sticky? By my reckoning, they have allowed people/labels with no moral rights to establish 'ownership' for things that belong to everyone or no one.

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 22 Jan 2014, 01:55

It seems IPRS has applied the logic applied to Western music copyright to Carnatic music. That is if I go and record and sell a version of Justin Beiber's song 'Baby' then I would be in breach of copyright. Unfortunately, this is not the same as me recording and selling my version of Endaramahanubhavulu!

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 22 Jan 2014, 03:30

Folks, I have started discussions with an IP lawyer CM singer/teacher to come up with some follow up steps. Will update you in one or two days.
Meanwhile please continue your good work and get AS MANY AS POSSIBLE to sign the petition to You Tube:
Http://chn.ge/Kpg9er

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 22 Jan 2014, 06:04

Mohan, The equivalent example in CM where that logic will apply is with a composition of a contemporary CM composer. In that case, no matter what our individual opinions are about that, it is enforceable by IPRS.

It is possible that IPRS thought copyrights have not expired! That IPRS letter is a colossal mess, and hopefully they will write a better and more relevant one once they learn the details from Venkat. IPRS should come straight out and unconditionally state that all the claims by labels for Trinity's songs is all total nonsense. Anything less is still a cause for concern.

As Ravi and I and others have been fretting over in this thread, who in their 'right' minds even gave these labels the rights to Trinity's songs in the first place? ( even leaving out the issue of whether copyrights expired or not ).
I think our continuing collective frustration is about that.

Lahari admits to making a mistake. It will be good to know what they are taking responsibility for.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 22 Jan 2014, 07:36

Quote from the IPRS email:

Further pl note that a sound recording created from a work which is in public domain is still governed by the copyright laws of a country. Hence a license is needed to communicate such sound recording to the public. We have been given to understand that some of the claim which was made is on account of sound recording.

Bulls**t... I don't see how some of the claims could have been made on account of sound recording. If the work is in the public domain (60 years after the death of the composer), then the only people who can authorize the creation of a sound recording and the communication of it to the public are the performers (unless the work is made for hire, under a specific written contract, in which case the producer of the work also has rights). So, if you have the performers' permission, there is no such claim that anyone else can make legally on the sound recording.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 22 Jan 2014, 09:37

What the IPRS LETTER states, in terms of questions and answers - shared on my "best effort" basis

What does IPRS do?
We would like to inform you that IPRS administer literary and musical works on behalf of its members who are music companies/publishers, authors and composers and we only administer their literary and musical works by issue of licenses or collection of license fees or both.
Does IPRS claim/deny copyrights?
IPRS as such doesn’t claim any work on its own by any process as such is not responsible for any claim dispute which arises on YouTube by way of automatic process followed by YouTube or in case of manual claim by the music company/publisher.
Who claims copyright on You Tube?
On YouTube process of content claiming is done by an owner of right like a music company/publisher. This objective is achieved by the owners of rights by sending metadata of the content to YouTube with details of works and ownership in said works and clearly stating that literary and musical works is being administered by IPRS for the territory
What happens in You Tube?
manually claiming such content by the owners of right in their Content Management System or automatically with Google/YouTube automated delivery tools-CMS Uploader software and XML/SFTP deliveries, content identification tools by YouTube.
IPRS and You Tube:
As such IPRS doesn’t claim any work on YouTube directly and it is the members like music company/publishers who claim a work on YouTube resulting in royalty payment to IPRS.
Why does You Tube involve IPRS?
Pl note that once in their metadata owners of the right state that literary and musical works are administered by IPRS in the territory YouTube as a process automatically incorporates IPRS name as an administering entity controlling said compositions.
How does You Tube raise Copyright alerts?
As a result whenever YouTube Content ID matches said work with their database by melody match, Audio match based on reference files submitted by owners, it raises a claim in the name of IPRS and the owner of right i.e. music company/publisher. In light of this it should be clear that any claim which is attributed to IPRS actually originates and rests with the owner of the right i.e music company/publisher and not with IPRS.
Who has the final say?
As such veracity of all such claims rests with such owners of right who are in best position to claim or release any claim.
What happens in case of works in public domain?
Further pl note that a sound recording created from a work which is in public domain is still governed by the copyright laws of a country. Hence a license is needed to communicate such sound recording to the public. We have been given to understand that some of the claim which was made is on account of sound recording.
Copyright of old works:
Also it is to be noted that copyright in published literary, musical works subsist within the lifetime of the author until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies and Fair dealing with any work is limited to purposes as covered under section 52 (1) (a) only.
What next?
However in view of your submission, on best effort basis, we can go through the claims submitted by you if you are able to send us YouTube links of such claims along with reasons of disputes. This is necessary for us to get in touch with our concern member and for YouTube team to look into said matter further for anomalies in automatic claim process if any.
Time line:
Pl note that in view of limited resources at our disposal it may take some time to respond to you on this matter and request for your patience on this matter.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
1. Since as the name states, You Tube is a medium created by Google to encourage individuals to create and share A/V creative works, the implementation of a NON-MODERATED UNILATERAL COPYRIGHTS CLAIMS REGIME is actually an impediment to their stated objective and ease of use. Who will mandate and fix this!?

2. Carnatic music is based on a body of works of composers which predates 1950's. All these composers wanted their works to be performed and shared by artistes. Did these composers automatically give rights to be owned by the IPRS member recording labels? Who will verify the actual ownership rights of copyright on compositions by these labels!?

3. What is the difference between ONE recording of a song and A SECOND recording of the same song in terms of copyright of the composition!? JUST THE MEMBERSHIP OF IPRS AND A UNILATERAL COPYRIGHTS CLAIM BY THE IPRS member!? Does this not violate the principles of the Indian Constitution?

4. Since Carnatic music, the genre under discussion, is a classical art form, should it be managed for copyrights ONLY BY COMMERCIAL ORGANISATIONS WITH UNILATERAL AND UNTENABLE COPYRIGHT CLAIMS? Does it not create an undemocratic, mercenary regime that can kill a great art form of India!?

5. Should the governments, courts and reputed academies all remain helpless and inactive witnesses to this abhorrent situation!?

6. Should we take up an appeal to the Chief Justice of India in this regard?

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 22 Jan 2014, 09:44

Good God, that IPRS letter is a standard template reply copy pasted. Let's see if they will properly investigate this matter and reply properly next time. It is their negligence (and I believe a general lack of awareness of CM history) that has allowed these false claims to happen. It must be made clear that all compositions of the trinity and circa are public and that in case of contemporary composers, it's they alone who own their compositions.

As I can understand it, now they claim that the labels send information to youtube that these works are administered under IPRS guidelines and hence youtube bots pick out any recording of the composition and automatically raise a claim to that effect. IPRS itself is totally unaware of the whole thing. Also the labels have also falsely claimed that rasikas' and parivardini's recordings are actually piracy of their own albums and somehow they have got away with it. One more culprit here is also the (rather severe) limitation of the AI software that melodically tries to match recordings on Youtube with commercial albums -- it generates too many false positives.

It's time to check if IPRS keeps a proper database of CM compositions with their current status in the public domain (or Creative commons as the case may be) at all and if they don't, it's high time to launch an initiative in this direction.

@Rsachi, I also signed your petition.

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 22 Jan 2014, 09:54

Someone a while ago did a home recording of the song, Bhavayami Gopalabalam, and uploaded on You Tube.

You Tube came back within hours saying the copyright is owned by Saregama.

The uploader clarified in response that this was a home recording for purely listening/learning purposes and was NOT a duplicate or pirated track.

You Tube released the claim.

What is the chance this artiste will record another well known song and upload? Much less than before. Why all this 'vambu=panga=talenOvu'?

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 22 Jan 2014, 10:09

RSachi...a question for you....anywhere in that load of crap from IPRS did you see how anyone can claim ownership? For instance,can I claim to YouTube that I own the rights to a kRti...say bhAvayAmi raghurAmam? Obviously, anyone with the sense god gave a goose would ask me for proof, right? How on earth did the labels provide that? Someone, somewhere is surely one neuron shy of a seizure.