Broadcasters blast proposed Copyright Act changes
27 Nov 2009
The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has criticised the human resource development ministry's proposed amendments to the Copyright Act, which they say will skew the field heavily against the television and radio industries while spelling windfall gains for ''monopolistic'' music companies and copyright societies.
It has written to HRD minister Kapil Sibal to demand immediate consultations, adding that no consultation paper with the stakeholders was floated prior to drafting the amendment bill, which is to be soon introduced in Parliament.
''It may be pointed out that news channels which enjoy constitutional protection in respect of free speech and expression are likely to be severely hurt by any tinkering with the 'fair use' provisions of the existing Section 52 of the Copyright Act,'' said IBF in a statement on Wednesday.
'Fair use' allows news channels to telecast short clips of sports events and use version recordings (with their own orchestra rather than the original soundtrack) of songs and music without paying any royalty or nominal royalty to the rights holders.
The association also said there is a need to set up a single-window regulator in the music sector, as also to set up a copyright board. In addition, there is a need for statutory licensing provisions in order to ensure that broadcasters are not left to the whims and fancies of copyright owners and societies.
Also, the introduction of new provision Section 33A should be avoided as it will ''vest draconian powers with the Copyright Societies,'' IBF said.
In its press release, IBF expressed shock at the ''hush-hush'' manner in which the changes in the Copyright Act are sought to be introduced. They have pointed out that none of the stake holders, including artists, lyricists and broadcasters, have been consulted, nor have the proposed amendments been put up on the ministry website for inviting comments.
The broadcasters have raised special alarm on a proposed provision which would allow the aggrieved party to seek relief from the Copyright Board, but would also stipulate that while the appeal is pending, the complainant would have to pay up the amount demanded by music companies or copyright societies.
Since appeals often take four or five years to be settled, the dice would be completely loaded against the complainant, IBF said.
It has written to HRD minister Kapil Sibal to demand immediate consultations, adding that no consultation paper with the stakeholders was floated prior to drafting the amendment bill, which is to be soon introduced in Parliament.
''It may be pointed out that news channels which enjoy constitutional protection in respect of free speech and expression are likely to be severely hurt by any tinkering with the 'fair use' provisions of the existing Section 52 of the Copyright Act,'' said IBF in a statement on Wednesday.
'Fair use' allows news channels to telecast short clips of sports events and use version recordings (with their own orchestra rather than the original soundtrack) of songs and music without paying any royalty or nominal royalty to the rights holders.
The association also said there is a need to set up a single-window regulator in the music sector, as also to set up a copyright board. In addition, there is a need for statutory licensing provisions in order to ensure that broadcasters are not left to the whims and fancies of copyright owners and societies.
Also, the introduction of new provision Section 33A should be avoided as it will ''vest draconian powers with the Copyright Societies,'' IBF said.
In its press release, IBF expressed shock at the ''hush-hush'' manner in which the changes in the Copyright Act are sought to be introduced. They have pointed out that none of the stake holders, including artists, lyricists and broadcasters, have been consulted, nor have the proposed amendments been put up on the ministry website for inviting comments.
The broadcasters have raised special alarm on a proposed provision which would allow the aggrieved party to seek relief from the Copyright Board, but would also stipulate that while the appeal is pending, the complainant would have to pay up the amount demanded by music companies or copyright societies.
Since appeals often take four or five years to be settled, the dice would be completely loaded against the complainant, IBF said.