Question Description
Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.A recent case of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music has sparked a widespread discussion over Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, which provides a scheme for “statutory licensing”. The section was introduced to remedy the challenges faced by the radio and television industry and sought to ensure appropriate returns to the owners of the copyrighted work and easy access of protected material to broadcasters. The requesting party can directly obtain the licence through a unilateral notice informing the copyright owner and paying the royalty rates specified by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Interestingly, the section was introduced in 2012 when internet broadcasting was prevalent but failed to make any references to the same.New music streaming services, such as Spotify, now find themselves in similar shoes as FM operators. However, India possesses no guidelines to regulate the manner in which licences are to be obtained by online streaming services, and it is mostly left to voluntary arrangements which open the door for exploitative agreements and allows setting of unreasonable licensing conditions, leading to loss of consumer welfare by affecting accessibility. This, including the fact that streaming services are now key players in the music industry, presents a strong case for introducing a statutory licensing scheme exclusively for these which are now obtained under 31D.The Bombay High Court was faced with the question of whether online streaming services could claim under the scheme of 31D. The court held that 31D is an “expropriatory legislation” i.e. an exception to the principles of copyright, and therefore, needs to be read strictly.Additionally, since it was enacted for meeting a specific public-policy objective of protecting radio and television broadcasting companies, its ambit cannot be extended beyond the legislative intent to also include online streaming services.In response to this judgment, the Copyright Rules 2013 were hastily sought to be amended to make the statutory licensing scheme applicable to online broadcasting organisations. The proposed amendment would replace the words “by way of radio broadcast or television broadcast” with the more broadly worded “for each mode of broadcast” in the relevant rules. However, no similar amendment has been proposed to the Copyright Act itself.Q.As per the passage, what is the cause of the discussion regarding the statutory licencing?a)The Copyrights Act was the first legislation in respect of the Intellectual Property Rightsb)Section 31D has taken into account radio and television industriesc)The rights of the copyright holder have been violated by not introducing statutory licencingd)Section 31D was introduced in the year 2012, at a time when internet broadcasting was in existence, yet the amendment failed to take it into considerationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.