The Legal Battle Between Spotify And Warner In India

Spotify quietly launches in India today, although previously Warner Music Group had requested the Indian court to block the music streaming service from playing music from its catalog including music of artists like Cardi B.

In March 2018, Spotify first announced its plans to join the Indian market. However, its attempt has been delayed several times because of the music rights marketplace of India.

Although Spotify hasn’t successfully secured a license with Warner, it might still able to play music from Warner/Chappel Music, a publishing division of Warner.

Both sides had been in discussions but couldn’t reach an agreement. Spotify stated that Warner

Since Warner is owning a small percentage of several songs, Spotify says it needs to have a deal. Therefore, Spotify came up with a solution of taking advantage of the provision of the copyright law of India. According to this provision, “broadcasters” can get a license for the copyright works even when the copyright owner denies its use.

Warner has asked the Indian government not to grant this request, stating that Spotify is exploiting a law for traditional broadcasters like television and radio. Warner says:

In its defense, Spotify says in its filing for a license:

The Copyright Act of 1957 of India has received amendment six times, but the part that applies to the battle between Spotify and Warner is in the change that was passed in 2012. Section 31D was added, which requires broadcasters to obtain licenses for copyrighted works.

Out of all the things that have been modified in the copyright laws, there is one part that still remains the same, which is the definition for the term “broadcast.” In 2016, the definition is expanded. The term “Broadcast” covers not only television broadcasting organizations and radio but also internet broadcasting organizations. This is what Spotify is taking advantage of to be able to use Warner’s catalog.

Kwee Tiang Ang, the director for the Asia-Pacific region of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, voiced his concerns about the exploiting of the 31D section:

If Spotify wins this legal fight, Warner will suffer serious revenue consequences. There is a potential that Warner might lose out on both streaming payouts and alternative revenue streams.

A subscription plan for Apple Music in India starts at 120 rupees (around $1.69) while in the U.S, it costs $9.99 a month. The ad-free price will probably be at the same mark. So the company’s primary revenue will come from telecom subsidies and ads instead of subscriptions. If the courts decide to side with Spotify, Warner couldn’t get their hands on these revenues.