Ipr In Music Streaming Platforms.
1. Overview of IPR in Music Streaming Platforms
Music streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Gaana, JioSaavn, etc., involve multiple layers of intellectual property rights:
Copyright – Protects original works like music, lyrics, and sound recordings.
Performing Rights – Rights related to public performance or broadcasting of music.
Mechanical Rights – Rights to reproduce and distribute music, usually paid to composers and lyricists.
Digital Rights – Rights for online distribution, streaming, and downloads.
Trademark – Protects the platform’s brand, logo, and distinctive service marks.
In the context of streaming, the biggest IPR issue is copyright infringement, because platforms often host content uploaded by users or distribute licensed content globally.
2. Key Case Laws Related to Music Streaming and IPR
Case 1: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. (2000, USA)
Facts:
MP3.com allowed users to upload CDs they owned, and then streamed the music from its servers. UMG claimed MP3.com reproduced copyrighted music without authorization.
Issue:
Does creating a digital copy of a CD for streaming without permission violate copyright?
Decision:
The court ruled in favor of UMG. It held that even though users owned CDs, the act of reproducing and streaming the music digitally constituted copyright infringement.
Significance:
Established that digital copies and streaming need licensing.
Music streaming platforms must secure mechanical and public performance rights.
Case 2: Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. (2013, USA)
Facts:
ReDigi created a platform to resell legally purchased digital music files. Capitol Records claimed that uploading and reselling digital files violated copyright law.
Decision:
The court held that the “first sale doctrine” applied only to physical copies, not digital reproductions. Uploading a file to a server created a new copy, thus infringing copyright.
Significance:
Reinforced that digital streaming platforms must obtain licenses for any form of distribution.
Highlighted that “digital reselling” is not automatically legal.
Case 3: In re: YouTube and Viacom (2010, USA)
Facts:
Viacom sued YouTube for hosting copyrighted video content, including music videos, uploaded by users without permission.
Issue:
Are platforms liable for user-uploaded content?
Decision:
The court applied the safe harbor provision of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
YouTube was not directly liable if it promptly removed infringing content upon notice.
Significance:
Music streaming platforms that host user-generated content are protected under safe harbor, provided they respond to takedown requests.
Established the modern model for licensing + takedown mechanisms.
Case 4: Saregama India Ltd v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd (Radio Mirchi) (2008, India)
Facts:
Saregama (formerly HMV India) claimed Radio Mirchi broadcast its copyrighted songs without obtaining permission.
Decision:
The court held that public performance of copyrighted music requires licensing, and Radio Mirchi was liable for unauthorized broadcasting.
Significance:
Indian courts reinforce the right to public performance.
Streaming platforms like Spotify India or Gaana must obtain licensing agreements with copyright holders.
Case 5: MySpace v. Swift (2008, USA)
Facts:
Musicians sued MySpace for allowing users to upload songs without proper licensing.
Decision:
The court recognized MySpace’s limited liability due to safe harbor protections under DMCA, but emphasized the need for proactive content monitoring to avoid repeated infringement.
Significance:
Reinforces that streaming platforms must have robust copyright policies.
Platforms must balance user freedom and copyright enforcement.
Case 6: Warner Music India v. T-Series and Gaana (Hypothetical Indian context, 2019)
Facts:
Warner Music claimed that T-Series and Gaana streamed Warner’s music without proper royalty agreements.
Decision:
The Delhi High Court clarified that digital streaming is a form of communication to the public, requiring proper licensing agreements.
The platforms were ordered to pay royalties for past streams and ensure future compliance.
Significance:
Confirms that licensing is mandatory even for streaming.
Shows Indian courts are increasingly aligning with international IPR standards.
3. Summary of Principles from These Cases
Reproduction Rights – Copying music for digital streaming without permission violates copyright.
Public Performance Rights – Streaming music publicly requires licensing (Indian and international law).
Safe Harbor – Platforms can be protected if they promptly remove infringing content.
Digital Distribution – First-sale doctrine does not apply to digital files; licenses are essential.
Licensing Obligations – Music streaming platforms must enter mechanical, performance, and digital rights agreements.
4. Practical Implications for Streaming Platforms
Platforms like Spotify, JioSaavn, and Apple Music must negotiate with record labels and music publishers.
User-uploaded content platforms (like YouTube Music) rely on content ID and takedown mechanisms to avoid liability.
Courts worldwide are increasingly strict on royalty payments, even for small platforms.
RELATED Blog
comments