Author name: Prashant Reddy

Pursuant to our last few posts on the IPRS dispute, a source has passed on to us a copy of the controversial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Indian Performing Rights Society, the Indian Phonographic Industry & the Phonographic Performance Pvt. Ltd. We thank the source for this disclosure. We’ve briefly discused the ramifications of the MoU in this post over here. This is the MoU referred to by the Registrar of Copyrights during his attempted inquiry into the alleged

I received a comment earlier this morning on the IPRS posts which basically informed me of ‘an information overload – filter failure’. In hindsight its does appear that the 6 posts on the IPRS controversy are slightly complicated. I have therefore briefly summarized the contents of the previous posts in this one post:(Image from here) The first post (available over here) explains how IPRS stopped collecting royalties for mobile ringtone royalties and how PPL instead started collecting royalties on behalf

This is the last in the series of posts on the state of affairs at IPRS. The previous posts on the subject can be accessed over here, here, here & here. When I started of this series I had clarified that the contents of the posts were only one side of the story, as I had not contacted either PPL or IPRS for their side of the story. However the revelations in the last few posts, raise several prima facie

As discussed in an earlier post of mine, over here, the Registrar of Copyrights had launched an inquiry into the internal functioning of IPRS and had in fact asked a very, very detailed set of questions on the management of IPRS. This inquiry was frustrated when IPRS sent the Registrar of Copyright a letter informing him that it had been sued by Saregama before the Civil Court in November, 2009 at Barasat and that the Court had ordered a ‘status