(Image from here)
The second post (available over here) explains the events leading up to situation wherein the music companies managed to take control of IPRS, which until now had a healthy representation of lyricists and composers. Through a series of ‘special resolutions’, the most controversial one being the one on 5th January, 2008, the bye-laws governing IPRS were amended in such a manner to ensure that firstly voting rights were now linked to the number of works owned & secondly to ensure that lyricists and composers were always in a minority on the Board of Directors.
The third post (available over here) explains the events leading up to the controversial ‘special resolution on 5th January, 2008 which had amended the ‘bye-laws’ to ensure that music companies had complete and total control of IPRS. The ‘events’ are basically a list of strategically planned law-suits before a Court which did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter. There was also mention of an application to the Registrar of Companies seeking for the postponement of the ‘Annual General Meeting’ in 2007. The application was based on alleged order of the High Court which finds no mention in the Director’s report. Eventually the AGM which amended the Articles of Association was passed 5 days after the deadline granted by the Registrar of Companies.
The fourth post (available over here) explains how the IPRS management abused the judicial process to deliberately frustrate an inquiry by the Registrar of Copyrights in November, 2009. The Registrar of Copyrights was examining the issues raised above, when IPRS and its members connived to get a court order which they later misrepresented as an injunction against the Registrar of Copyrights.
The fifth post (available over here) explains the various legal options available to the Registrar of Copyrights.
The sixth post (available over here) explains how the Registrar of Copyrights may have goofed up in even recognizing IPRS as a Copyright Society back in 1996 since its ‘bye-laws’ were in complete violation of the Copyright Act, 1957.