Case Name: WYNK Ltd. and Another v. TIPS Industries Ltd. and Anr on 18th June 2024 (Commercial IPR Suit No. 26 of 2019)
“Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which explains about the statutory licenses, allows broadcasting organizations, such as radio and television broadcasters, to use copyrighted music upon an intention to broadcast the work, stating the duration and territorial coverage of the broadcast, and shall pay to the owner of rights in each work the payment of royalties fixed by the Commercial Court.”
In the case of WYNK Ltd. and Another v. TIPS Industries Ltd. and Anr, the Bombay High Court interpreted Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957. WYNK Ltd., a popular online music streaming network operated by Bharti Airtel, believed it could also enjoy these statutory licenses under the comprehensive “broadcasting organisation.” In the emerging outlook of the digital era and copyright law, the Bombay High Court ruled down a major judgement that has had a huge impact on the Indian music business. The facts of this case were that the WYNK filed a claim under Section 31D of the Copyright Right Act, 1957. They acknowledged that the Copyright Board, i.e., the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, which was still in existence at the time, has not yet established rates. Although WYNK agreed to pay the first installment of royalties amounting to Rs. 10 lakh, WYNK independently determined that the royalty should be paid at 10 paise per stream, amounting to approximately Rs. 1.41 crore for the period from September 2016 to November 2017. WYNK issued TIPS a demand draft for this sum. The court ruled that WYNK could not access and use music owned by TIPS Industries Ltd. and held that the statutory broadcasting rights did not extend to online music streaming and downloading, rendering WYNK ineligible for these licenses.
This case sets a precedent for internet-based platforms if they must engage in proper contract negotiations with record companies like TIPS to access and distribute music online. OTT (Over the Top) internet service providers, such as WYNK, cannot use copyrighted music without the necessary licenses from the copyright owners. The court stated that the objectives of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which added Section 31D to the Act, ultimately failed because the profit-orientated platforms might not serve a public purpose. This amendment aims to increase public access to musical works. The court’s interpretation appeared to limit its scope to traditional radio and television broadcasters. In the earlier case of Warner/Chappell Music Limited v. Spotify AB, 2019 the Bombay High Court also adopted a narrow interpretation of Section 31D, based on the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee’s 227th Report and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2012 Amendment, which aimed to ensure that authors, particularly of songs in films or sound recordings, receive royalties for the commercial exploitation of their works. In its judgement, the court rejected WYNK’s argument to be considered a “broadcasting organisation” because Section 31D, read with Rules 29 and 30 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, does not include internet-based streaming service providers or online broadcasters, but only radio and television broadcasters.
AUTHOR:
Thirisha S, 4th-year student of B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) from School Of Excellence in Law.