There is no doubt that the Authors (lyricists and composers) make a significant contribution to the success of any song. This is also a fact that when we refer to classic songs?Awara Hoon or Mera Joota hai Japani?the first name that comes to our mind is Raj Kapoor, the master showman.

A successful film song is the result of many creative minds working together to create a film. And music has always been an integral part of Indian films. The producers, therefore, do recognise the importance of Authors in creating songs for their films.

At the same time, we must also appreciate that a film song becomes successful after the enormous contribution made by a producer, not only creatively but also financially. The entire burden of costs from recording and picturisation of songs in thefilm to its expansive marketing is only on the producers. If the investments and risks are borne by a producer, then the ownership of the film and its music should be vested with the producers only. The music industry in India has seen its ups and downs as is the case with other parts of the world as well. New business models have emerged, which are very different from the days of owning music albums. If there are many new rights introduced to monetise a song, then there are also many new opportunities for Authors to earn significant revenues from many other platforms such as live shows, performances and endorsements. And all these opportunities are the result of successful films and music that producers invest in.

Now, the entire debate is about Authors? rights to receive royalties. No one, therefore, seems to be objecting to Authors getting a share in the profits or working out a win-win royalty share mechanism. However, the serious concerns expressed by the producers? fraternity spring from the fact that the amendments proposed to the Indian Copyright Act cart off the freedom and ability of producers and Authors to negotiate commercially, by imposing restrictions on assignments and royalty rights and by prescribing a compulsory minimum threshold for royalties. This results in effectively taking away the ability of Authors and producers to contract freely.

Why can?t Authors and producers negotiate the terms of the contract? This can include royalties and the initial fee (consideration) charged by the Authors.

If some of the Authors don?t wish to go for a long-term royalty model, then they should have the freedom to demand one-time payment against future royalties. Otherwise, the option of the long-term royalty model, based on actual revenues earned by a song, always exists. The bigger question is what should be the royalty and based on which rights? How will these rights be monetised? How will all those involved in the business work together to promote music so that royalties or profits can be generated? This can be discussed and finalised once we all agree to the fundamentals of the film business, to the single ownership of copyrights.

All of us have to look beyond our respective bank balances and create business for the future. The real solutions to our problems will emerge only when the competitive spirit that is dividing us will cease.

The author is vice-president, the Film and Television Producers Guild of India Limited

Shankar Mahadevan

A lack of understanding of copyright concepts, I believe, has contributed to film producers misinterpreting the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on copyright amendments. There is also an abject fear of losing the absolute control that producers and music companies have enjoyed in our almost feudal system of music ownership, which they continue to claim is natural and warranted for the sake of all concerned!

First, the committee has not said that lyricists and music directors be given ownership over films or sound recordings but rather artistes should be recognised as owners of the lyrics and music created by them in the same way as film producers own their films and music companies own sound recordings. Second, royalty from the use of lyrics and music (and not film or sound recording) should be shared between artists and producers or music companies who buy rights from the producers.

Producers and music companies were outraged, as to how artistes could be considered owners of lyrics or music in the first place! They argued that since producers provided the ?situation? for the song, they were the owners of the lyrics and music!

Producers now agree that artistes have been treated shabbily and should be paid royalty but urge that any law ensuring a ?right to royalty? is not required as this would prevent authors from contracting ?freely?! The argument that ?free contracting? will assure the best system in India is wrong. How can artistes be protected in a system that has the power to exclude you from the industry for speaking out? Look at the film producers? ban against Javed Akhtar!

Music companies share an equal portion of blame for the current situation. First, the lack of transparency around copyright societies, controlled by music companies, has meant that music publishing, which is a viable business internationally, has suffered in India. Phonographic Performance Limited, the copyright society that looks after licensing sound recordings, earns more than Rs 150 crore a year, but the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) that looks after lyrics and music licensing activity strangely does not even earn Rs 30 crore!

Second, there was a ?royalty sharing principle? agreed to in 1993, when music companies replaced producers as members of IPRS. Music companies now say this was a mere ?welfare scheme?. Artistes like me have no say in the affairs of IPRS; royalties are ad hoc and never shared from major revenue sources like TV. Third, music companies are no longer interested in fostering music. Imagine, the position of being India?s biggest music company is today claimed by Airtel and not by a Saregama or T-Series or Sony!

Internationally, artistes assign their rights, but are able to get royalties for the use of their lyrics and music through radio, TV broadcast, mobile and Internet distribution, etc. If we accept what music companies? claim will be the consequence of a similar practice in India as is proposed, the American film or music business should have become non-existent by now. I hope people see that it is not only an attitude that needs correction but a system that needs to be fair and in a system that has rejected the concept of fairness for decades altogether, the law needs to define what is fair. What is wrong with that?

The author is a music composer and singer