FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’S

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

(Established under the Punjab Act 12 of 2006)

A Project Study Submitted on: “Compulsory licensing under Copyright Law: A study
of its impact on music rights”

Supervised By: Submitted by:

Dr. Geetika Walia Mudit Nagpal

Assistant Professor of Law, 16167

RGNUL, Punjab 3rd Year, B.A.LL.B.

Group No. 22
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction....................................................................................................3

Compulsory Licensing of Copyright in India .............................................4

Compulsory Licensing of Copyrights: Public Interest and the

Entertainment Industry ................................................................................6

Compulsory Licensing of Music: An Analysis of the Copyright Board

Decision .........................................................................................................12

CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COPYRIGHT

BOARD:........................................................................................................16

THE ROAD AHEAD...................................................................................16

Conclusion ....................................................................................................18

Bibliography .................................................................................................20

Page | 2
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 INTRODUCTION

What’s Copyright?
A copyright is a collection of rights automatically vested to you once you have created an
original work. To understand how these rights can be used or licensed, it is helpful to
analogize them to a bundle of sticks, where each stick represents a separate right vested
to you as the owner. These rights include the right to reproduce the work, to prepare
derivative works, to distribute copies, to perform the work publicly, and to display the
work publicly. 1
As the copyright owner, you have the authority to keep each “stick,” to transfer them
individually to one or more people, or to transfer them collectively to one or more people.
This can be accomplished through licensing, assigning, and other forms of transfers. The
power of copyright allows you to choose the way your work is made available to the
public.

1
Stephen M. Stewart, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, Butterworth’s, London, 1983,
p.20.

Page | 3
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 COMPULSORY LICENSING OF COPYRIGHT IN INDIA

WHAT IS MEANT BY LICENSING?

A license is the transfer of interest in a copyright. In a license, the rights granted are
limited. A grant of a license to a person authorizes the licensee to use the copyrighted
work without any claim of infringement or unauthorized use being brought by the owner
of the copyright against the licensee.

A license is different from an assignment as the licensee gets certain rights subject to the
conditions specified in the license agreement but the ownership of those rights vests
solely in the owner of the copyright. On the other hand, in case of an assignment, the
assignee becomes the owner of the interest assigned to him. The original owner of the
copyright transfers all his/her rights to the assignee and retains none.2

A license can be voluntary or compulsory.

VOLUNTARY LICENSING

Section 30 of the Indian Copyright Act3 defines what is meant by voluntary licensing.
According to Section 304:

The owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright
in any future work may grant any interest in the right by license in writing signed by him
or by his duly authorized agent.

Therefore, the copyright owner of any existing work or the prospective owner of any
future work can grant any interest in the right by way of a license. However, it has to be
borne in mind that in case of future work, the license will come into force only when the
work comes into existence.

COMPULSORY LICENSING

Compulsory license is the term generally applied to a statutory license to do an act

covered by an exclusive right without the prior authority of the right owner. Compulsory
licensing allows for the use of protected (in this case, copyrighted material) without the
prior permission of the owner of the right.

2
https://copyrightalliance.org/ca_faq_post/what-is-copyright-licensing/.
3
Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
4
Sec. 30, Indian Copyright Act, 1957.

Page | 4
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
Section 31 of the Act5 provides for the compulsory licensing of copyright in case of
works that are withheld from the public. In case the copyright owner has refused to:

Republish or allow for the republication of the work or has refused to allow for the
performance of the work in public due to which the work is withheld from the public;

Allow communication of the work to the public by way of a broadcast of such work, or in
the case of sound recording the work recorded in such sound recording on terms which
the complainant considers reasonable,

The Copyright Board can, after providing reasonable opportunity for the owner of the
copyright to be heard and after conducting an enquiry and if satisfied, can direct the
Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory license to the complainant to republish the
work, broadcast the work or communicate it to the public as the case may be. Upon such
direction, the Registrar of Copyrights shall grant the license to the complainant.

Further, a compulsory license can also be granted in case of unpublished Indian works.
Section 31A provides for the same.6 In case of an unpublished work wherein the author is
dead or unknown or cannot be traced, any person may apply to the Copyright Board
seeking for a license to publish such work.

WHY IS COMPULSORY LICENSING SO IMPORTANT?

The primary objective of compulsory licensing is to ensure the availability of copyrighted

material. The Indian Copyright Act grants protection to the works of writers, artists etc.
so that they can benefit from the results of their hard work and creativity. However, this
comes at a price i.e. the work should be available for access and fair use for other
individuals. There are times when copyright owners refuse to part from their work. In
such a case, in order to ensure the availability of copyrighted material to the public and
free flow of ideas and information without infringing the rights of the copyright owner,
compulsory licensing becomes a necessity.7

5
Sec. 31, Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
6
Sec. 31A, Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
7
Robert Cassler, COPYRIGHT COMPULSORY LICENSE- ARE THEY COMING OR GOING?,
COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 231 1989-1990.

Page | 5
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 COMPULSORY LICENSING OF COPYRIGHTS: PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

Having a pluralistic culture with people belonging to diverse religious and linguistic
backgrounds, India has a unique demography. Music is an essential part of the Indian
culture, and the country is known for having a rich heritage of folk and classical music.
While the Copyright law in India which provides protection to literary, musical and
artistic works has its origins in the British legislation, the law has evolved with changes
in international scenario.8

The market of music recordings in India is different from the West, as most of the music
is produced for movies, and the sales are dominated by the film music. The recording
industry in India has been dominated by a few players, and the modern times have seen
an increase in the role of collecting societies which are authorized to collect royalties on
behalf of the music companies.

Indian copyright law, which is based on the Berne Convention 9, includes certain
provisions for compulsory licensing of copyrights in respect of certain works, which are
withheld from the public. The authority for entertaining complaints on such matters has
been given to the Copyright Board, a statutory body10 established under the Act. The
purpose behind the provision is to prevent the abuse of monopolies granted by
copyrights, and to create a balance between individual rights and public interest. The
Copyright Board has also been given the authority to adjudicate disputes relating to issue
of compulsory licenses in copyrighted works.

After the liberalization of the economy, the FM radio sector was opened for operation by
the private sector companies. A number of radio operators who got licenses to operate the

8
R.P.Merges, Contracting into liability rules:IPRs and collective rights organizations, California Law
Review 1296,Vol.84 (1996).
9
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works art. 9, Sept. 9, 1886, 1161 UNTS 3.
10
Copyright Board, http://copyright.gov.in/frmCopyrightBoard.aspx.

Page | 6
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
stations approached certain music labels for licensing of copyrighted sound recordings,
for the purpose of broadcast on radio. As the royalties demanded were not acceptable to
the radio operators, they considered these as unreasonable and approached the copyright
board for grant of compulsory licences in respect of those works, contending that
demanding unreasonably high royalty rates amounted to withholding of the recordings
from the public.11

This project looks into the law relating to compulsory licensing of copyrighted works, the
recent royalties disputes between radio operators and record labels, the impact of the
decision by the copyright board, and the future of the music industry in India.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IN INDIA

The Indian music industry is over a century old. The size of the industry is estimated to
be about Rs.670 crores and is expected to touch Rs.777 crores by 2009. The turnover of
the industry steadily declined from Rs 1,150 crore in 1990s to Rs 450 crore in 2005 , as
rampant piracy has adversely affected the revenues. According to a study done by Ernst
and Young, music is one of the worst hit sectors of the Indian entertainment industry,
with 64 per cent of the market estimated to be pirated and the total loss to the industry
being estimated at $325 million. There are many peer to peer networks and websites that
allow illegal download of digital music. Users are increasingly relying on P2P networks
over individual websites.12
The Indian music market is very different from other markets like USA or Asian markets,
and the sales are highly dominated by film and devotional music.

wrong with India’s music industry?, http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/05spec.htm.

11
12
Piracy costs Indian music industry $325 mn:
E&Y,http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/piracy-costs-indian-music-industry-325-mn-ey

Page | 7
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
From the early 1900’s, one company, namely, the Gramophone Company of India which
was a subsidiary of the Gramophone Company Ltd., London, had a virtual monopoly
over the record market. The GCI released its recordings under the HMV (His Master’s
Voice) label.13

In 1961, the arrival of Polydor dented HMV’s monopoly, but HMV still maintained
hegemony with 60% of the market. In the late 1970s, audio cassettes and cassette players
flooded the country, and became popular very quickly. These cassettes were cheap to
reproduce and could be easily distributed, and this created the piracy industry in India, a

13
ASHA KASBEKAR, POP CULTURE INDIA!: MEDIA, ARTS, AND LIFESTYLE 19 (2006).

Page | 8
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
significant part of which was owned and operated by a new record label, T-Series. The
company quickly emerged as the biggest competitor to GCI, which even came close to
winding up its operations. By the mid 1980s, T-Series had reportedly stopped the pirated
recording business and 'shifted' completely to the legitimate businesses. Today, T-Series
is the largest record label in India, which has more than 80% market share in the music
industry.

There are a number of other record labels in the country, and 160 of these are members of
Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL), is a Copyright Society which is entrusted with the
task of administering the Broadcasting / Telecasting and Public Performance Rights on
behalf of these companies. Another registered society, SIMCA (South Indian Music
Companies Association), is an association of 86 music companies set up in 1996 to look
after the common problems faced by the Industry in South India.

Thus, the music market in India has been dominated by a very few number of record
labels. The collection of royalties for music recordings is entrusted to societies like PPL
and SIMCA. There have been multiple allegations of abuse of dominant position on
record labels and collecting societies. The disputes relating to royalties between
broadcasters and music companies have been increasing; this is discussed in the
following part.14

THE LAW RELATED TO COMPULSORY LICENSING IN COPYRIGHTED

WORKS

Compulsory license is the term generally applied to a statutorily license to do an act

covered by an exclusive right, without the prior authority of the right owner. Compulsory
license provisions afford the facility of using protected material in certain circumstances,
as provided by statute, without seeking the prior permission of the right owner. 15 Some of

14
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE SOUTH INDIAN MUSIC COMPANIES’
ASSOCIATION, http://simca.org.in/.
15
R.P.Merges, Contracting into liability rules:IPRs and collective rights organizations, California Law
Review 1296,Vol.84 (1996).

Page | 9
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
the terms (for instance those regarding rates of payment) may be fixed by the court, or a
tribunal, outside the provisions of the statute. The legislator, in introducing such
provisions, has often sought a means to establish a fair rate for the royalties to be
charged, and a system for avoiding abuse of exercise of rights in a monopoly situation.

Article 9 of the Berne Paris16 Text provides the basis for the provisions concerning
compulsory licensing. This provision provides the Convention’s exclusive basis for
equitable remuneration and provides for the conditions which should be met before a
member country can entirely excuse a use which includes the equitable remuneration and
not prejudicing the reasonable interests of the author.

Section 31(1) provides for the compulsory license of the Indian work and provides the
authority to the Copyright Board in this regard. The Copyright Board, a quasi-judicial
body, was constituted in September 1958. Adjudication of disputes pertaining to grant of
Licenses in respect of works withheld from public falls within the jurisdiction of
Copyright Board. The Copyright Board was reconstituted under the Chairmanship of Dr.
Raghbir Singh for a period of five years with effect from 5thApril, 2006 till the year
2011.

The section provides that after the publication of any Indian work, on satisfaction of
certain conditions, the Copyright Board may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a
license for that particular work subject to the payment of compensation to the holder of
17
copyrights license (which may be fixed by the Copyright Board).

The conditions that need to be satisfied are:

(1) The work for which the copyright is being claimed must have been published or
performed in public.

16
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works art. 9, Sept. 9, 1886, 1161 UNTS 3.
17
Indian Supreme Court on an "IP" Roll: "Scotch" Whisky Denied Protection While Music "Compulsory
Licensing" Scope Expanded, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/05/indian-supreme-court-on-ip-roll-
scotch.html.

Page | 10
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 (2) The author must have refused to allow the publication or performance of the work in
public or in case of sound recording has laid down unreasonable conditions.
(3) The work is held from the public by reason of such refusal.

The objective behind the section is to provide for the mechanism to prevent the abuse of
monopoly by the copyright holder and to ensure that the general public is not deprived of
the copyrighted work, solely because of the unreasonable demands of the copyright
holder.

The Copyright Board has been conferred certain powers under this section:

i. The Copyright Board may hold an enquiry as to whether a compulsory license may be
issued to the complainant to republish the work, perform the work in public or
communicate the work to the public by broadcast, the Copyright Board is to direct the
Registrar of Copyrights to grant such a license on its being satisfied that the grounds for
such refusal are not reasonable;
ii. The Copyright Board has been authorized to fix the amount of compensation to be paid to
the owner of the copyright for republishing the work, or for performing the work in
public or for communicating the work to the public by broadcast, and the board may
determine such other terms and conditions which would be applicable for granting such
license to the complainant.

Thus, the justification of compulsory licensing is based on drawing a mid line on a

spectrum where the market domination is one side and the incentive-less intellectual
property system is on the other side.

Page | 11
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 COMPULSORY LICENSING OF MUSIC: AN ANALYSIS OF THE COPYRIGHT BOARD
DECISION

The recent judgment of the Copyright Board in Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd vs.
Phonographic Performance Ltd18 seems to suggest that the Buggles may have been a tad
too hasty in predicting the untimely demise of the radio. In an order that covered nine
cases, the Board held in favour of granting compulsory licences under Section 31 (1) (b)
of the Copyright Act, 1957 to complainants FM radio providers against music providers
such as Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). Section 31 (1) (b) which was primary
section in question reads as follows:

“31. Compulsory licence in works withheld from public. (1) If at any time during the
term of copyright in any Indian work which has been published or performed in public, a
complaint is made to the Copyright Board that the owner of copyright in the work-

(a)…

(b) has refused to allow communication to the public by broadcast, of such work or in the
case of a sound recording the work recorded in such sound recording, on terms which the
complainant considers reasonable, the Copyright Board, after giving to the owner of the
copyright in the work a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such
inquiry as it may deem necessary, may, if it is satisfied that the grounds for such refusal
are not reasonable, direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the complainant a
licence to re-publish the work, perform the work in public or communicate the work to
the public by broadcast, as the case may be, subject to payment to the owner of the
copyright of such compensation and subject to such other terms and conditions as the
Copyright Board may determine; and thereupon the Registrar of Copyrights shall grant
the licence to the complainant in accordance with the directions of Copyright Board, on
payment of such fee as may be prescribed.”

18
Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2003 (26) PTC 70 CB.

Page | 12
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
[the above clause will likely make it to the Guinness book as the worlds’ longest
sentence]…
Thus Section 31(1) (b) confers on the Board the power to grant compulsory licenses in
works if it is satisfied that the copyright owners has refused to allow communication to
the public of the work and such refusal is not reasonable. The licensee then will have to
pay compensation and follow such terms and conditions as determined by the Board and
pay fees to the licensor as prescribed.

In this case, the issue in question was that whether the FM radio industry could claim
compulsory licensing on music owned by music providers such as PPL. This was based
on the argument that the latter were being unreasonable in charging exorbitant royalties
of FM radio channel providers for music owned by the latter which in turn was affecting
public interest at large.19

The argument regarding public interest was drawn up by pouring over government’s
policy regarding the involvement of private sector in FM radio broadcasting over the
years since the launch of the First Phase of privatisation in 1999.20 It was seen that the
government has wanted to help develop the private FM radio broadcasting as a tool of
engineering social development by which information, education as well as entertainment
could be disseminated to the remotest corners of India. Interestingly, the Board concluded
that FM radio broadcasters, though organized as business enterprises, thus now owe a
social obligation towards nation building. With a view to promote the industry, the
government itself had shifted from the burdensome fixed licence fee system to a revenue
sharing model wherein 4% of the gross revenue was to be given to the government.

The fact that the radio stations broadcast were of public interest being established, the
issue of whether the royalties charged by the music providers was reasonable came into
question. In considering the issue, the Board reviewed and subsequently rejected many of

19
SIMCA petitions Madras HC to scrap Copyright
Board,http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/simca-petitions-madras-hc-scrap-copyright-
board.
20
Madras High Court 'stays' the 'Compulsory Licensing Order' of the Copyright Board against SIMCA &
Super Audio, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/12/madras-high-court-stays-compulsory.html; See
also 2-wk stay from Madras HC on Copyright Board order's applicability to SIMCA recordings,

Page | 13
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
the respondent music providers’ arguments. The Board firstly held that comparing the
cost of content for radio service providers and TV Broadcasters was erroneous. While the
former was bound by government directive to be a ‘free to air’ service (wherein It cannot
charge any subscription from the public), the latter could and did charge the viewers.
Also there were many other restrictions regarding content aired on radio broadcast as
opposed to the television which again made comparing the incomes and costs over these
two different mediums, as the respondents had wanted to do, difficult.

Furthermore, comparing the royalties charged on All India Radio (AIR), a state owned
enterprise and private sector FM radio providers was again held to be wholly flawed. AIR
had for decades enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the radio industry and could afford to
make the royalty payments. The nascent FM industry, on the other hand, already running
in loss, was hard pressed to cough up the high royalty payments demanded by the music
providers of 14%-15% especially since its main content had to be music as it had too
many restrictions on the type of content it aired unlike AIR.

It was also strenuously sought to be advocated by the music providers that playing their
content over the radios was damaging their sale of music in physical formats such as CDs
and cassettes. However the Board rightly pointed out that the respondents had not sought
to assess how much of the loss was a result of newer digital formats such as IPODs,
mobile phones, TVs etc and even piracy. In fact the counter argument raised by the
complainants seemed to suggest that the popularization of music by the radio stations
would only boost the music industry.

Given the fact that the radio service providers are running in losses, and have due to
restrictions few income generating avenues – the fixed royalty system of the music
providers, the Board found, would result in diminishing access of the work to the public.
Using a ‘needle per hour’ concept wherein the prize of the license is fixed irrespective of
the size of the radio service providers and its reach (listeners and advertisers) was

Page | 14
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
ineffective and unreasonable. The Board concluded that the ability of the licensee to pay
should be assessed on the advertisement revenue that it generated.21

The Board held that keeping in mind the fact the radio service providers, though private
commercial ventures, worked within the social development plan of the government, the
only reasonable license fee model was wherein the music providers charge a fixed
percentage of the net advertisement revenue. In fact the Board reasons that this would
generate far more income for music providers as more broadcasters would be willing to
come into the foray throughout the country which would generate further income. Based
on the reasoning provided above the Board developed a set of terms and conditions under
which it directed the Registrar of Copyrights to grant licenses to the complainants based
on a revenue sharing model wherein 2% of the net advertisement earnings of each FM
radio station would be set apart to pay the music providers.

Though the judgment is a definite positive for the FM radio industry, there still remains
the question of whether it will help serve the very purpose on which the judgment hinged
– that of public interest. Sure the average city dweller will be able to get his regular dose
of ‘top ten 90s singles’ on his way to work, but it remains to be seen as to whether it
would really help incentivise greater expansion of the private radio industry in tribal or
remote areas wherein the revenue earned is likely to be less.

21
Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v Entertainment Network (India) Ltd., AIR 2004 Del 326.

Page | 15
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COPYRIGHT BOARD:
THE ROAD AHEAD

Soon after the order fixing royalty rates was passed by the Copyright Board, T-Series and
SIMCA filed appeals praying that the Order of the Copyright Board not be enforced
against them since they were not made parties by the radio stations in the compulsory
licensing applications filed before the Copyright Board. The Delhi High Court ruled that
the Order of the Copyright Board could not be made applicable against T-series.

The Madras High court passed an interim stay on the order with respect to the SIMCA ,
only to later vacate this stay in a later order. It was held that since SIMCA is not a
registered Copyright Society under the Copyright Act, it cannot represent a collective
action on behalf of all of its members. The Madras High Court however refused to grant
such a stay to PPL since PPL was unable to convince it of the need for such a stay.

PPL filed an appeal against the order in the Madras High Court under Section 72, which
was admitted by the Madras High Court. A challenge to the appointment of the chairman
of the copyright board was also filed in the Delhi High Court.

Later, SIMCA petitioned the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of
the copyright board itself. The petition, presently being heard by the Court bases its
arguments on a judgment of a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the
case Union of India v. R. Gandhi,22 which struck down key provisions pertaining to the
creation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

If the chairman's appointment is held illegal or irregular on some grounds, or if the

challenge to the constitutional validity of the copyright board is upheld, this will not
impact the earlier decision given by the board. It has been suggested that under the de
facto doctrine and the doctrine of necessity, courts are likely to uphold the validity of the

22
Union of India v. R. Gandhi , [2010] 6 S.C.R. 857.

Page | 16
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
proceedings, notwithstanding any irregularity in the appointment of members
adjudicating the dispute/proceedings.

With multiple appeals pending before the courts, the royalty dispute is yet to see a final
outcome, and the judgment may have a far-reaching impact on the future of music
industry in India.

Page | 17
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 CONCLUSION

As the music industry faces declining profits, the dispute between radio stations and
music companies relating to royalties is yet to see a final outcome. With multiple appeals
pending in this regard, there is a need for the legislature to ensure that the Copyright
Board is constituted as per certain minimum legal standards, so that the questions on its
integrity come to rest. This is essential as the dispute has continued for almost a decade
now, and its conclusion will have impact on a large number of interests in the industry, as
well as the general public.

The growth of such statutory tribunals in India has been sporadic, and devoid of a
uniform pattern. The decisions given by these tribunals as well as their constitutional
validity have been questioned in a number of cases. This has led to doubts being raised
about the transparency in their working as well as fairness in the approach adopted by
these tribunals. The method of appointment of the members as well as the structure of the
tribunals has been struck down by the Courts from time to time.

It must be accepted that the tribunals have come to stay, as the Supreme Court has
pointed out that it is well within the power of the legislature to constitute such bodies and
these are not per se violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. However, efforts
must be made to regularise the procedures, compositions, and review/ appeal of decisions
of tribunals. The qualifications for the membership for these tribunals must be laid down
so as to ensure their independence from the executive.

There is also a dire need for the Indian music industry to reinvent itself and overhaul its
operating model if it is to stay competitive in an ever-changing global scenario. As more
and more means of digital distribution of music increase, finding alternative revenue
streams for various delivery platforms is a must. The rapid growth of the telecom sector
in India has helped the industry by providing ways of getting revenue apart from
traditional sources like sales of physical CDs. Websites that offer streaming audio

Page | 18
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
services and digital music downloads have recently gained popularity in the west, and
similar business models have a great potential to save the dying art in India as well.
However, an efficient mechanism to settle copyright disputes and to prevent abuse of
monopolies by the record labels must be put in place, if we want this noble art to support
the cultural and economic growth of the country.

Page | 19
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Referred

 Ahuja, V.K., Law relating to Intellectual Property, 2nd Edition, Thomson Reuters.
 Dr. Wadehra, B.L., Law relating to Intellectual Property, 5th Edition, Lexis Nexis.
 V.J. Taraporevala, Law of Intellectual Property, , Thomson Reuters.

Research Papers Referred

 ASHA KASBEKAR, POP CULTURE INDIA!: MEDIA, ARTS, AND

LIFESTYLE 19 (2006).
 R.P.Merges, Contracting into liability rules:IPRs and collective rights
organizations, California Law Review 1296,Vol.84 (1996).
 Robert Cassler, COPYRIGHT COMPULSORY LICENSE- ARE THEY
COMING OR GOING?, COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 231 1989-1990.
 Stephen M. Stewart, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights,
Butterworth’s, London, 1983, p.20.

Statues Referred

 Indian Copyright Act, 1957

Case Laws Referred

 Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2003 (26)
PTC 70 CB.
 Union of India v. R. Gandhi , [2010] 6 S.C.R. 857.
 Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v Entertainment Network (India) Ltd., AIR 2004
Del 326.

Page | 20
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s
 Databases Referred

 INDIANKANOON
 MANUPATRA
 SCC ONLINE

Page | 21
FUNDAMENTALS OF IPR’s