Copyright Collecting Societies, Market Power, and the Digital Economy: A Study of Transparency Deficits in Royalty Distribution
This article is written by Rachita Nangalia, pursuing a B.A. LL.B. from Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal.
Collecting societies or collective management organizations (CMOs) serve the crucial function of a mediating role in granting license rights on original works and also to provide royalties in favor of the owners such as authors, composers, performers, and the producers. The Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended widely in 2012), in its Chapter VII, provides a legal basis for the collection society for its registration and regulation, such as IPRS, PPL/RMPL and ISRA in India. Notwithstanding this legal framework, considerable debates and disquiet have ensued as regards market concentration for licensing within a single society, lack of transparency in the determination of royalty rates and distribution, and the dearth of redress mechanisms for copyright owners and licensees.
This article critically analyzes the intersections of copyright and competition laws on collection society regulation, with particular reference to decisions of the Commission, as well as the decisions of the higher judiciary like HT Media and Azure Hospitality litigation, and argues that the dominant-position status of single society licensing in conjunction with disclosure-deficient regimes provided in section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Copyright Rules, 2013 creates a structural deficit in transparency which is now amplified in the digital ecosystem on account of algorithmic licensing, cross-border streaming, and integrated collection of rights.
The article concludes with actionable policy interventions like compulsory distribution audits, template financial reporting, and better institutional coordination between the Registrar of Copyrights and the Competition Commission of India.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this research article, submitted by students and/or other contributors in their personal capacity, are solely those of the author(s) and do not, in any manner whatsoever, reflect or represent the views, opinions, advice, or official position of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP (“PACTEDGE”). PACTEDGE makes no representations or warranties, whether express or implied, as to the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or currency of any facts, data, analysis, or legal propositions contained herein and shall not, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, be liable for any loss, injury, damage, or consequence arising directly or indirectly from any reliance placed upon this publication. The entire contents of this research article, including without limitation its text, structure, compilation, selection and arrangement of material, are and shall remain the exclusive intellectual property of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP, protected under applicable copyright and other intellectual property laws. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, adapted, published, communicated to the public, distributed, or otherwise made available in any form or by any means, whether electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, nor shared or reposted on any platform or medium, without the prior written consent of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP; any unauthorised use shall constitute infringement and may attract civil and/or criminal consequences, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP in law or equity.
Comments