Sound unbound?

In an effort to give the more invisible contributors to the movie business their due,the HRD ministry is working out a set of copyright amendments. For instance,a piece of film music has several components: the composer,the lyricist,the performer,and the producer. A composer may either be paid a fixed sum and cede ownership to the producer,or negotiate for a slice of future revenues. It is unclear how copyright amendments can intervene here and ensure a steady stream of income for artists who have already signed away their rights. But either way the amendments promise that original creators will be credited every step of the way,whatever the afterlife of their artistic work.

Remixes have been ridiculously popular in India,turning half-forgotten film songs into wholly different,highly profitable phenomena. The Kaanta Laga cover a few years back,for example,sold millions of copies and introduced a new generation to an old hit,but it offended the sensibilities of its aging composer,given neither credit nor compensation. Unassignable moral rights over a work would not only establish paternity,but also limit the perversion of an artists intent.

In addition,the copyright period of a film is also set to be extended,with a royalty-sharing arrangement between the directors and producers worked out. The HRD ministrys amendments are meant to protect the creative industries,but it must make sure it strikes a balance between legitimate protection of artists and a hyper-extended,restrictive copyright regime like the US now has where Disneys desire to hold on to Mickey Mouse bumped up copyright terms. Indeed,generally speaking,the less lawyerly permission required to access artistic material,the better for the culture at large. The slow creep of copyright can hurt public access and,ironically,the very artistic progress that copyright was designed to protect.