According to the story (below), "under statutory licensing, the royalty or remuneration for the author or creator is specified by law or such set negotiation", adding that "the bill allows for charging different rates depending on the use."
So, assuming IPRS is out of the equation (or is it?), who sets the rates depending on the use? PPL or the Copyright Board? These are deep waters. Sajan Copyright Bill cleared after differences on statutory licensing ironed out<http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/copyright-bill-cleared-after-differences-statutory-licensing-ironed-out#story> RadioandMusic, 11 May 12 NEW DELHI: The controversial Copyright Amendment Bill which had been deferred earlier because of differences between the Information and Broadcasting and Human Resource Development Ministries has finally been cleared by the Union Cabinet. It is understood that the two Ministries in their ‘fine tuning’ exercise have agreed to restore the provision of statutory licensing as proposed earlier in 2010. The amendments to the Copyright Act 1958, aim at according unassignable rights to 'creative artists' such as lyricists, playback singers, music directors, film directors, dialogue writers who will be paid royalty every time the movie they have worked in is aired on a television channel. A statutory licence is an exception under Copyright Act. It puts limits on the basic principle of the copyright law, that authors and creators should have the exclusive right to control the dissemination of their work. Under statutory licensing, the royalty or remuneration for the author or creator is specified by law or such set negotiation. With the bill getting clearance, the statutory licensing clause will not specify users allowing for television and new media broadcasters as well as radio broadcasters to be benefited. However, the bill allows for charging different rates depending on the use. The legislation had been opposed in Parliament in its last session, particularly the clause for statutory licensing for radio broadcast of literary and musical works. Radio operators had also protested the move by the HRD Ministry to significantly alter an earlier version of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2010. Association of Radio Operators for India (AROI) president Anurradha Prasad has written to I and B Minister Ambika Soni pointing out the adverse impact of a proposed change in the Bill by the HRD Ministry from the previous versions. Ms Prasad had told radioandmusic.com that the version of the Bill that was tabled in Parliament late last year mandates statutory licensing of music by a body called Copyright Board, at rates prescribed by that agency. Now there is a proposal to delete the statutory licensing clause. "Absence of such a regulation would mean that there would be too many bodies and companies demanding different royalty rates and representing different rights. Statutory licensing makes it easier for both radio companies to pay royalty and for music companies to collect royalty. This in fact is the only practical way as otherwise rate disputes and rights disputes would hamper growth of both radio and music industries," Prasad said in her letter to Soni. Prasad said the distribution of royalty between various music right owners was best managed by the Copyright Board as per laws and regulations existing from time to time. "The scenario desired is one collection and distribution agency governed by Copyright Board to whom radio can pay royalty and obtain statutory license, '' she said. http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/copyright-bill-cleared-after-differences-statutory-licensing-ironed-out#story
Join the Community Radio Forum. For membership details, please go to www.crforum.in
