A few months ago, lyricist Javed Akhtar had filed a complaint against the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) stating several irregularities with respect to royalty handling by the organisation. He stated that even though money was claimed citing his copyright works, there were irregularities in the payment of royalties. This resulted in a chargesheet being filed by the Mumbai Police against three IPRS members.
And it is not just IPRS who have been swindling people for quite some time now. Phonographic Performance limited (PPl), too has been a partner in crime. Both these copyright societies have, over the past, been obtaining money from event organisers, auditoriums, restaurants and hotels stating that they have to obtain a license by paying royalty for emulating their own ‘copyright’ music by citing the law. But no one bothered to look up the law. So they were actually coaxed into paying up — extortion of a dubious kind.
Koushik Kothari, prominent lawyer cum stage organiser and a specialist in copyright laws, initiated a big hue and cry over the nefarious activities of both the IPRS and PPl. “IPRS representatives have no sense of ethics. They barge into private parties and threaten organisers with legal consequences if they do not cough up a ‘royalty’ for playing their music,” fumed Kothari. What is more confusing is that there is no standardisation of the royalty that they demand. There are already innumerable pending court cases against both IPRS and PPl in various cities of India for illegally collecting money. Also, there has been no documentation of the songs that fall under the copyright of IPRS. “The Delhi High Court had earlier directed the IPRS to produce detailed listings of the original music scores under its copyright but even after three reminders they have not given that information. It is really simple, the IPRS obviously does not have copyright licenses for every song that was ever produced then why not produce a list of the songs under itIJ Why can’t people interpret IPRS for the fishy scheme that it really isIJ” Kothari told us.
Kothari, president of Organizers and Artists Welfare Trust, was accompanied by Amarjit Singh Kohli, president of its Delhi chapter, Delhi Organizers and Artists Society at the Press Club of India. Together, they have been working in tandem to unveil irregularities in the modus operandi of the IPRS. Though it came into existence on August 23 1969, it was registered as a copyright society only on March 27, 1996. To much irony, it is listed as a non-profit making organisation. But there is a twist in the tale here. Under the 2012 amendment of the Copyright Act, both the PPl and the IPRS had been de-registered and were directed to again register with the copyright registrar. It was mentioned that from that point onwards, licenses would be applicable for only five years.
Interestingly, though IPRS applied for a registration soon after it got de-registered in 2012, it is yet to get its license.
Speaking on the occasion, Kohli claimed, “Today these are illegal private societies. In an attempt to save themselves from the clutches of the law, both IPRS and the PPl, whose headquarters are in Mumbai, have admitted on their own letterheads that they are no longer copyright societies of India. But, their Delhi branch offices have kept everybody in the dark, including the Delhi Police licensing Department and have been illegally collecting money from individuals over the last two years which may run into crores of rupees.”
We come to know from Kothari that the Copyright Act allows owners of any class of work (theatre, music, literature and arts) to come together and form a representative body that issues copyright licenses once it is registered with the copyright board of India (copyright registrar).
“From that point onwards the company can deduct a maximum of 15 per cent of all royalties obtained as administrative charges and the rest shall be distributed in an appropriate manner among its subsequent members,” Kothari explained.
In February 2014, the Bombay High Court rejected IPRS’ challenge to an enquiry instituted by the Department of Higher Education, Copyright Office into its allegedly dishonest practices.The organisation not only filed writ petitions to quash the order instituting the enquiry, but also sought to restrain the Copyright Office from making orders to investigate into its affairs in the future. The thrust of IPRS’ contention was that the Central Government had no jurisdiction to make a prima facie opinion on its conduct — a power conferred to it through the Copyright Act, since it was de-registered.
But then the anomaly arises on which grounds is the IPRS still obtaining money from peopleIJ