Hindi Film 101 One-Off: Music Digital Rights Stuff

Remember yesterday when I was driven to an existential crisis by the way the release of “Phurr” kept being delayed and delayed?  Well, googling around today revealed there is a fascinating industry story behind it.  “Phurr” is being publicized as the first song to be released behind a “paywall”.  Which isn’t actually true, but that’s another story. (also, it’s on iTunes now, but also on Saavn, if you pay for the app like I do, you can download and listen as much as you want)

Non-Usual Disclaimer: I’m not an expert on copyright law, I have never actually worked in the industry, I don’t know any specific details about any of this.  But this is how it looks to me, observing everything that is common knowledge to the general public.

 

Let’s talk about Taylor Swift and gender issues!  Oh boy!  Not all the “all her girl power anthems, aren’t!” or “what’s with all the famous boyfriends?” stuff, BORING!  No, let’s talk licensing rights!  That’s the real stuff.

A year or so back, Taylor Swift was the first massively successful artist to pull her songs off of free services and insist on a paywall, at least for the first few weeks after release.  Which was generally reported as “Taylor’s managers make a smart move” or “Taylor is so selfish and actually hates the fans she pretends to love.”  Whereas if another massively popular singer had done this, a male one who writes songs about angst and drugs and stuff, the response would have been “Not only a musical genius, but also a business visionary!”  SO INFURIATING!!!!

(Also, I love Taylor for giving us the perfect fanvid songs.  Although this particular fanvid makes me slightly uncomfortable with the blurring of reality and fantasy)

But, why did Taylor do this?  It was a bold strike at the illusions that keep the internet economy going.  Back in the early early early years, people realized that they could rip songs from their CDs and put them on services like Napster for free.  It was considered “sharing”, just the same as if you had lent your friend your CD, but on a massive scale.  Heck, you can still lend your friend a CD, then can download the songs on to their computer, and then they can hand you back the CD.  Nothing illegal or impossible about that.

Anyway, the music companies FREAKED OUT when this happened.  Because they were still in the “I make a CD, I sell a CD” mindset.  Oh, and that’s not even getting into the massive price gauging profits in the CD market (so so so cheap to make, so so so expensive to buy).  So there was this whole big push-pull battle until, FINALLY, they let go of the illusion that CDs would always be there and started selling albums and even individual songs through legitimate services like iTunes.  And the market stabilized (temporarily).

But then new systems like Spotify started popping up.  These were “music sharing” systems again, but somehow legal.  And a new idea started going around, just like in the “olden days” you needed to let your song play on the radio, free to anyone who could get it over the airwaves (did you know in our grandfather’s time they used to make mix tapes by waiting for a song to play on the radio and then hitting record?  How crazy is that?), now the idea is you have to make your music available, for free, on these other services or else no one will know about you or care about your album.

(You thought this was old school, imagine doing this but by just waiting for the radio to play the song you wanted!)

And Taylor Swift was the first person to disrupt that.  To say “no, why should I provide free content to your service?  I would rather find a way for the people who really care to purchase it.”  So she came up with the idea of a temporary “paywall” as its called.  If you want to hear her album right away, you need to pay a subscription fee (part of which will go to her), or just purchase it, old school style.

Now, I don’t care about American popular music, like, AT ALL.  But I’ve been paying attention to this, because as music goes, so goes movies.  DVDs came out slightly behind CDs, or at least got popular slightly behind them.  And so the film industry was able to learn from music’s mistakes, and DVDs were issued with a routine electronic lock on them.  I mean, we all know you can still break that lock, but at least it made it harder to share them.  Oh, and they also had regions, something that non-Indian Indian film fans are VERY VERY aware of!  Nothing like the heartbreak of finding that rare film only to discover it is in PAL, not NTSC and you can’t play it on your American made DVD player.

And movies were also slightly quicker in the transition to streaming.  Not as quick as they could be, but quicker than that whole messy period where everyone was listening to music on their computer but music producers weren’t selling it in a way that you could listen to it on your computer.  However, now movies are hitting a bit of a different wall in content, at least Indian films.

This is something I have been straight up told by multiple DVD store owners.  The problem isn’t that people aren’t buying stuff, it’s that companies aren’t selling stuff.  Or making it available for sale.  The gap is in the right’s sales, not in the consumer’s failure to purchase.  I don’t know if it is the case for American movies (probably not because of the incestuous way our entertainment industries are tied together), but at least for Indian products, what I have been told is that the producers are trying to sell the DVD rights/streaming rights for, for instance, Raabta.  And no one is buying.  The cost of the rights purchase alone is prohibitive if they don’t believe they will attract any new consumers from it.  And so we have this gap in the Indian movie industry that lovely websites like einthusan are filling.  It’s not that I want to watch it illegally, it’s that it is just not available legally.  Because the producers are holding out for such a high purchase price for the rights, no legal company is willing to pay it as they can’t make a profit on that.  But an illegal company who pays nothing for the rights can.  Ideally, there will be a balance, producers will realize that something is better than nothing and make their rights available for a lot less money, and some company somewhere will realize it is worth it to host these unpopular films for the few people who are willing to pay for them.

Image result for er tv show

(This is a lot more noticeable in America with TV shows.  Because of how the FCC rules used to work, a lot of the older shows were owned not by the network that showed them, but by a separate production house.  So now the Networks don’t want to pay for rights to these shows from an outside company when they can play their own shows for free, and there’s this gap.  Stuff like ER, not available streaming or on reruns anywhere, and with the bottom dropping out of the DVD market, it’s just disappeared completely.  Until the producers give in and make their rights super super cheap, that’s when you may notice it popping up all over the place, like what happened with Barney Miller)

Or, maybe not!  That’s what’s happening with Netflix US right now, there is this huge data dump.  All of their super super super cheap content that they purchased way back at the beginning to fill up their library, they are letting the rights lapse.  And instead they are focusing on getting more and more content that people really really want.  And so, in Indian film terms, we get Dangal on Netflix US super fast.  But we lost all those Amitabh classics that used to be streaming.  Because people will buy (or keep) a subscription just for something like Dangal.  But the Amitabh classics are more of a bonus, a “oh hey, that’s here too?  That’s cool”.

But what’s happening in India?  I’m sure we have all noticed that the opening and closing credits of films now routinely cite a partnership with either Amazon Prime or Netflix.  And Salman Khan just recently announced a new partnership between Salman Khan and Amazon Prime (not as exciting as the Red Chillies deal, because SKFilms hasn’t been as obsessive about buying up his older content.  This isn’t the Salman Khan library, this is just his handful of recent films to which he has retained the rights).  These two companies are battling for audience in a way that is great for film watchers!  If you are in India.  They are in the early phase where every scrap of content is snapped up in an effort to get every single person in India on to their platform.  Those “oh, that’s cool” Amitabh movies?  Well, there’s someone out there who is willing to sign up with Netflix just for those.  And Netflix India is desperate enough that they want to attract even that one person.

What I haven’t seen as reported on is what is happening with music and streaming services in India.  Indian popular music really is not like popular music elsewhere.  Because it’s all film based, right?  The music’s main purpose is to get you in to see the film, not just to exist on its own.

Back when I was in college and everyone else was on Napster and Napster-clone websites, I was on smashhits.  Which was like those “music sharing” things, but actually legal.  Well, legal-ish.  More like, no one cared enough one way or another to think about it.  It was US based and it played all the popular film songs.  You could download if you paid a subscription, or just stream them unlimited, creating your own playlists and everything.  And then smashhits became Saavn, which I am reminded every time I sign in because they still have my old “Studying for finals” playlist that I made sophomore year somewhere stored in my account.

(A constant reminder of my strange affection for the Kyun! Ho Gaya Na soundtrack)

It’s not just smashhits/Saavn.  There’s Raaga (which mostly does non-Hindi) and Gaana too.  They went from streaming websites with funky graphics and SO MANY ICICI Bank ads between every song, to fancy apps you can download on your phone.  And about 2-3 years ago, suddenly Saavn started running constant ads for itself, “Saavn Pro”, which would let me download unlimited songs and listen offline for a fee.  Which I had no interest in, because who is ever offline?

And then POOF!  Just a few months back, Saavn announced no more Saavn free.  If you want to use the app (which is the only way people listen to music nowadays), you have to pay a monthly subscription cost.  Which I promptly did, because I can’t live without my Saavn.

And I can’t live without my Gaana and my Raaga too.  Because while we were suddenly paying more on our end, the indications were there that they were suddenly paying more on their end too.  If I wanted to hear “Zaalima” and all the other Raees songs, I had to use Gaana instead of Saavn, because it wasn’t on Saavn.  If I wanted to hear the soundtrack from Thattathin Marayathu, I had to use Raaga because it wasn’t on the other two services.  The majority of the songs in the entire history of Indian film were still shared between all 3 services (especially Saavn, Saavn is the best), but there would be these odd gaps.  And sure enough, Raees comes out and there’s “Gaana” plastered all over the credits, they had an exclusive deal with it.

(Totally worth downloading a new app just for this)

Again, Indian popular music is different than in other places.  What was (is?) industry standard is that the production house/producer owns all the music for a film forever.  It’s not the composer’s, it’s not the singer’s, it’s the producer’s.  And the producer isn’t in the music business, he’s in the film business!  He wants to use the song to promote his film, and to help people enjoy his film, and then he’s kind of done with it.  Sure, he’ll sell the rights to some record company to make a little profit, but he isn’t laying awake nights worrying about the failure or success of some love song.

We all know how songs are used in movie promotions today.  In the post-MTV India, song videos are a thing.  You want a super catchy song the country will fall in love with, with a great video that will get lots and lots of plays, and then people will remember the name of your movie and come to see it.  Plus, they are great “buzz” features.  Like little movies within the movie, you can release hints about the “look” for the song, about who might make a special appearance in it, and now even these trailers-for trailers-for trailers and on into infinity all building up to a full length music video.

But in all of this, just like in recent years in America, the actual value of the individual song has gotten a bit lost.  We are so used to just playing the song trailer on youtube instead of even streaming in Saavn.  Which, sure, helps promote the movie and all that.  But it doesn’t put any money in anybody’s pockets directly.  Well, except for Youtube.

Enter Diplo!  Who, I think we can all agree, has a very stupid name.  And a career which makes no sense to me, I don’t understand the DJ/producer type thing.  But what I am able to garner is that he comes from the American music production world.  Where you continue to own the rights to your own work, or at least the music company that bought them continues to own them, even if they are used in a film.  The music is on top, not the film, if that makes sense.  The film gets a very very limited part of the music rights for one use only, and then it goes right back to the music owners.

I don’t think Diplo himself suggested this whole thing, but I think the combination of the Western style musician whose music people would be more used to paying for than, say, Pritam on his own, plus the idea that this song is somehow “different” because it involves collaberation with the West, is why “Phurr” was chosen as a test balloon for the whole “what if we paid for our music content?” idea in India.  And so, yes, it is being reported around that “Phurr” is going to come out, but not as the usual youtube video music video, instead as just the music available for purchase or through subscription services.  Nameless subscription services, which is very odd to me, that articles are reporting it will be sold straight up as a single on iTunes, or available “through subscription”.  What does that mean??!?!?!?  WHAT SUBSCRIPTION?????

I think what that means is that they are hoping no one will notice that Indian film music is already behind a “paywall”.  Like I said, Saavn’s been subscription only for a while now.  And there are already songs that are only available on Saavn, not elsewhere.  Sure, you could always listen on your laptop for free, but who does that?  Gaana must have paid big big bucks to Red Chillies (or whoever they sold the music rights to.  Zee?) for the exclusive Raees soundtrack.  And it got me to download the Gaana app.  Free, but still got me to do something I wouldn’t have otherwise just because I wanted that particular song.

If you say “‘Phurr’ will be available through iTunes and Saavn, a paid subscription music service”, then people are going to say “hey hey hey wait a minute!  I’ve had to pay for Saavn for months now, this isn’t news!  By this definition, all music was behind a ‘paywall’ since, like, March!”  Or maybe I am overthinking it.

Anyway, in general, I personally have no issues with any of this.  Sure, let the content creators get paid!  Why not!  We’ll still be seeing the movie anyway.  And if the smaller films can make some of their money back by selling exclusive music rights, that’s fine too!  So long as Radio Mirchi keeps chugging along (Radio Mirchi!  WHY DON’T YOU LIVE STREAM TO AMERICA???), people can still hear the music and the films will still get promoted.  If I can’t watch a song video over and over again on youtube while I wait to buy the DVD, I’ll survive.

(They don’t even make their incredibly catchy theme tune available!  WHY????)

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Hindi Film 101 One-Off: Music Digital Rights Stuff

  1. 1. I thought the Gaana app does have some 10 or so Radio Mirchi stations too but not sure if they also play in US.
    2. Raees soundtrack was released on YouTube on Jan 25 or so. Was it released on Gaana exclusively much before that then?
    3. Just curious to know why the reaction to a male pop star doing that is expected to be any different or better received with less opposition or indignation.

    Like

    • 1. Oh, you can listen to individual Radio Mirchi shows, I just want a straight up streaming experience, like if I were listening live. I’m picky.

      2. It was on youtube and stuff, but it was only on one streaming app. Which is similar to this, if you wanted to listen to it not on youtube, you only had one option. Now they’ve just gotten rid of the youtube option all together. It feels like they have been experimenting with the idea of a limited music release for a while, and this is just the perfect choice to finally go all the way.

      3. It’s the way there was an automatic assumption that Taylor didn’t come up with this on her own, or if she did, there was some emotional kind of reason behind it. Which is very gendered, you don’t often see men announcing something and everyone assuming that they didn’t come up with the idea themselves, or men announcing something and people immediately looking for an emotional reason behind it.

      On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:03 PM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:

      >

      Like

      • Hmm well okay just wanted to know the reasoning for that expectation, I didn’t even know she had made that move. Still interested to read anything on that topic even something that presents/supports your viewpoint if there’s something that you’d want to point me towards.

        Like

        • No, it’s really just my reaction to the articles about it. You can feel free to disagree.

          On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:30 PM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:

          >

          Like

  2. But the entire album of Raees is available on Saavn. I’ve been listening to Zaalima since January! Maybe they came out on Gaana first or something.

    Like

    • Yeah, it came out on Gaana first. Again, just like this. It just came out on twitter that there is/will be a youtube video version. So the whole “paywall” thing just means the first 24-48 hours it was only available on itunes or Saavn, not youtube or one of the free services. Really not that different from what has been done before, but they are promoting it this time.

      On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:49 PM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:

      >

      Like

  3. Pingback: Phurr Video Out! So, that Whole “Paywall” Thing Was Really Nothing | dontcallitbollywood

  4. Very very interesting article. Like you I’m not an industry professional but I suppose where Indian take on music rights differs from the American one (and every industry that follows the American model of music rights etc) is in where our music comes from. Both in the north and in the south, the “music” follows classical and semi-classical traditions and ragas and so on. So no music in India is really original in the truest sense of the word. And from an industry that proudly rips off western and regional music and serves it proudly as ‘originals’, talk of copyright and laws is all kinds of ironic. Add to that the fact that a huge chunk of songs in the Hindi industry at least borrow extremely liberally from folk and sufi traditions which means the music belongs to the public anyway and charging a fee for it makes zero sense.

    Back in the day, everyone bought cassettes and owning a cassette wasn’t a huge deal. We had stereo sets that allowed us to tape over and record from radio and make mix tapes etc, but those were very rare and costly so it was cheaper to just buy the cassette. It cost 50 bucks to buy a cassette for a film OST in the late 90s. it was probably less than 30 bucks before that. An English language music cassette cost around a 100 bucks. I bought the Micheal Jackson History tour set for around 250 bucks and it was the costliest cassette set i had. Plus, you listened to music on the stereo owned by the family. You didn’t have your own Walkman or player unless you were rich. It was a family investment and it was usually kept in the living room where the entire family could access it. When the mobile phone revolution hit India, we did go through the phase where you downloaded and shared songs from sites that paid no fee to the makers or it was simply shared via Bluetooth on phones or downloaded on your SD card by the friendly neighbourhood mobile shop wala bhaiya if you didn’t own a computer (owning a personal and single user only computer is still a big deal in this country)

    With the smartphone revolution came music apps. And the music app market in India operates differently than it perhaps does elsewhere. For example, i got Wynk when it was launched. At first it only allowed me to stream songs. Which was OK cost-wise since i only needed to pay for my phone’s data pack or home wifi to use the app. Now, Wynk allows me to download songs on the app on my phone for a small fee. Like 99 bucks or something. We can pay for it using an e-wallet or let the subscription be deducted from the mobile balance from the service provider wynk is affiliated with (Airtel). so i’m paying for the music through the subscription anyway even if i haven’t paid for a song individually.

    Another thing to consider in terms of music rights in India is that we consume music differently here. FM radio is huge. And they pay for the music they play. They get to blast us with a gazillion ads in return. Audio launch, as you would know, is a big event almost comparable to the muhurt shot for a film. It has sort of lost it’s appeal in Bollywood but it’s still pretty big in regional industries.

    As you said, the goal for any band/singer in India is to make it to film playback. Look at Mohit Chauhan. He had a superhit music album before he was singing playback. Indipop used to be exciting and they sold plenty of cassettes too. Ghazal cassettes were big. You might find it interesting but there exists a market for CDs with film albums and local artist compilations that are bought by car owners since you need a new car stereo to play music via USB or bluetooth. We’re a nation of people that don’t run after upgrades just because. Our car stereos usually get updated only when we buy a new model! That is how we’re consuming music.

    Now, since the Indian music industry relies heavily on on the film industry, the music that we get to hear for free on music channels, on radio or even online for free (or not exactly free app based services) is a part of the film’s promotion. Charging your consumer’s for your product’s promotion is just plain stupid. If they want to paywall their songs, not only are people not going to pay for the song, they’re probably not going to go watch the film either.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s a really interesting point about the availability of computers/internet. And it goes back to the DVD rights. Einthusan, and other websites, are streaming based off a DVD that was purchased in India. Because in India, it seems like, the DVD market is still a market, possibly because it’s harder to stream (both with internet speeds and not everyone having their own laptop). But in America, for the less popular films, they aren’t released on DVD for months and months (if at all), and there isn’t a really big streaming company interested either. Sure, Netflix and Amazon and google play all have a growing Indian section, but it’s only 1/5th of the films that release in a particular year even for mainstream Hindi, and only like 0.00000000001% of the films of all time.

      On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:04 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:

      >

      Like

      • Again, the dvd market doesn’t provide the variety of content that’s on tv already. Plus the numbers of tvs has increased but the sale of dvd players has decreased because the class that buys pirated dvds has moved up to cable or dish. I was talking specifically about the music market in my previous comment. People don’t upgrade their car stereo till they buy a new car. That’s why there are still cars with cd players around with no USB or aux or Bluetooth options. This is why paywall cannot work in indian music scene as it might in the West.

        Like

    • I’m reminded of what the Zuckerberg character says in a line from the social network film about how a guy who’s built a new chair doesn’t owe money to everyone who’s ever built a chair. Saying that no music that draws from established patterns in ragas and Sufism etc is original is analogous to saying no film that follows the three act structure or other basic templates of storytelling is entirely original. I don’t see why the end result or main purpose of a song being attached to a film should have any bearing on whether it should be charged for.

      Like

      • Except it is being charged for via ads played on tv and radio. The premise of songs in indian films is that they’re part of the promotional material for a film. What you’re saying in the context of films translates to users paying filmmakers to watch trailers for their upcoming films. In terms of the economy of filmmaking at large, the end consumer is already paying for their music via Internet subscriptions and TV subscriptions. When listening to songs over FM, the value for the filmmakers is generated via ad revenue collected by radio stations in exchange for music rights they pay for. What the paywall concept is doing is marketing the song directly to end consumer who is anyway paying for the Internet subscription and generating ad revenue for the site hosting the paywalled content.

        In terms of originality, Indian films and Indian film music has a very bad record. Would you call trying to sell the song Maine Pyar Kiya to Stevie Wonder an honest trade? Or would you like some sanstha to copyright our epics so we have to pay to read it or reference them in works of art?

        Like

        • Ok let me rephrase then. It is not wrong for creators or owners of those creations to maximise revenue in any legal way they see fit. Matters of fairness or ethics can get subjective. Capitalising on early first access via a premium is a perfectly accepted method even if some think it’s cheating those on a subscription model who’ll get it later. And tv ads and radio is out of the viewer or listener control, what you pay for is on demand access.

          As for originality well that can also get subjective. Bulleya for example is widely thought to be a copy of some English song which I then heard separately and felt that it was not a direct rip off but I could see why it came across that way esp with Pritam’s reputation.

          Like

          • Acceptable to whom? That’s the million dollar question. Related to the same premise is monetization of blogs. Would you pay a fee upfront to access a blog similar to this one where you have no clue what the payment gets you or would you Esther the blog owner made money through pageviews and ad revenue made through page visits where the reader is paying nothing upfront? If paywall becomes an acceptable model, then technically the entire Internet can be filled with pay to view websites. Imagine an online bookstore asking you to pay to get a preview of an ebook. And you also have to pay for the actual book too. It’s making money off promotions. Maybe in terms of making money for the already big name author it’s a great model but it kills the unknown author. In indian films, this paid trailer/promotional song strategy would kill smaller names and smaller production houses and deprive the audience of a chance to access a wide variety of content. How many trailers from the scores of films launched each day around the world would you like to pay to watch? Per day, per week, per year?

            Like

          • I am loving sitting here listening to this conversation. Fascinating! Just want to jump in for one additional point to consider. In America, where music rights are strict, there is an issue with certain movies/TV shows never releasing on DVD, or playing in reruns, or streaming, because each new version requires re-buying the music rights, and the cost is prohibitive. When the movie/TV show/whatever was originally made, the musician/song hadn’t hit it big yet and so they could buy the rights cheaply. But to re-purchase those rights for the purposes of TV broadcast of a film, or DVD release, or streaming, is so expensive that the film is just never released. Or it is released, but with a different soundtrack than it had originally, with all the songs replaced with cheaper options.

            A famous example is the American TV show WKRP in Cincinnati. It’s set at a radio station, and major plot points revolved around the songs being played. And, partly because this TV show helped promote them, a lot of those songs from the show have gone on to become classics. Which means the very TV show that helped introduce them to the public, can no longer be played anywhere because the costs for those music rights have become astronomical.

            Picture if a film like Murder could never be broadcast or released on DVD or streaming, because the soundtrack is more successful than the film and the cost of re-buying that soundtrack for a new format is more than the film producers can afford. Because the soundtrack is now considered as divorced from the film, rather than something that the film owns in perpetuity.

            On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:

            >

            Liked by 1 person

          • True. And we have to also consider that India is a price sensitive market. The purchasing power of the actual audience isn’t as great per capita as the west so a western system of revenue making cannot and should not be blindly copied here. We’re hardly in the second decade of our entertainment industry having received full fledged industry rights. For someone to make it into a system which eliminates the smaller guy making films is doing a disservice to our culture at large.

            Like

        • I’m only saying artists and producers are not obligated to do things any one way. Nobody said it is the ONLY way songs will be made available, it is just to capitalize on those fans who just cannot wait and are willing to pay for first day access. What’s wrong with that? Like KJo says it ain’t a charity. There already is a rising number of online publications esp news outlets that are going paid and I see nothing wrong with that, just that I’ll not pay and have to look elsewhere.

          Again, I don’t see music relative to the purpose it is commissioned for. Be it indie or pop or solo or film soundtrack. A movie is a product they are selling, and I get to see trailers to see what it is about and decide and so it must be a free sampling. Same goes for songs, I see song teasers and if I absolutely must have it the moment it is available then why can’t they have me pay for the privilege if I want it oh so bad?! Simply seeing songs like scenes in a movie and hence part of the fabric is too simplistic IMO wrt to them being separate entities. Heck with this logic you’ll be aghast at how dare they even sell BGM separately (only Hollywood I think coz no songs heh).

          New entrants? Surely they can count on their work to first speak for itself and catch people’s attention before using that to get ahead like so many YTers have done.

          Like

        • First, I never said this is the only way today. BUT, since they’re operating within an industry, the chances of it becoming the only way are high if the model finds success for the big names and smaller names are forced to accept new regulation.
          Your logic would be amazing if it was either discussing the western music industry separately and the Indian music industry separately. As we know, the Indian music industry is dominated by film music. If it were dominated by individual artists, the story would be different. Very few individual artists have made their mark both on the indie scene as well as the film scene. Honey Singh is a major example and since he is also not making anything right now due to his health issues, we can’t really say where he stands- whether he’s a film only singer or if he’s a largely indie singer. So the homegrown reference isn’t there.
          Since our music scene is dominated by film music, there is basically no thin line telling us when a song is just a song by a singer featured in a film and thus a part of its promotion and when it’s an individual song that the artist and his label are free to market and sell individually on their own without it serving as a promotion for the film. If it’s a part of the promotion, then making it a paid option is elitist since not all fans can pay. It’s also a loss-making style of promotion since the entire idea of promotion is to reach as wide an audience as you can. And I’m talking about the industry as a whole not just one big name or one big music label.
          Now, about the paywall. We’d have to look at how Indian playback artists get paid without bringing paywall into it for a moment. Imagine you’re Arijit Singh (just an example here) You got a break singing playback through a friend of a friend who introduced you to a music director who had you sing a few songs and eventually some of those songs got featured in a film. The song was not written by Arijit, its music wasn’t designed by Arijit and it wasn’t produced by Arijit. So Arijit has no legal rights over the song to begin with. But he’s ok with it since he got paid for singing the song by the music director already. So he got his share before the song is even released. The music director then takes the song to a film producer who decides to feature it in his film. The music director gets paid for the song he made by the film producer. So the music director is also paid his share before the song is released. Now the rights to the song are in the hands of a guy who has not created it and has had no part in creating it at any stage. He just bought it. Because it makes his film more appealing. It may or may not serve a purpose in the story. That’s why our films are filled with songs that sometimes don’t really advance the story. Because the songs weren’t developed exclusively for the plot.

          Then we come to the promotion stage. So the film producer creates a trailer which uses the song and takes it to music channels, music apps, radio channels, etc. They buy the rights to play the song legally. So the film producer also gets paid for the song at this stage. The song is then owned by the radio channel, the music channel, the app that then airs it. Now how do these outlets make money? Through advertising. So even the distributors of the song are also paid up front for the song through their advertisers before the song has reached the audience.
          Now let’s come to where the audience has already paid for the song. The audience member has already bought the subscription for the dish pack that allows him to get the music channel on TV, the audience member has paid subscription for the music app and the audience member also has to sit through ads on radio to hear the song for “free”. Basically, the song isn’t free. It had never been. Everyone in the chain has been paid upfront. Even the audience member has paid upfront for the song he is about to listen to. Whether the film the song is a part of does well or badly has no impact on the payments already made to everyone. If the film does well and the song is a hit, the singer, the music director all get to raise their fee a bit. They will still get paid upfront for their songs. At some point, when the singer is a hit, the label that owns the songs makes a compilation and makes more money through apps or CD sales.
          In my understanding, how it works in the West is that the indie artists make the song and labels buy and market the song. So a young singer is spotted by a scout working for a label or an agent representing the artist takes their song samples to the label. Either way, the song reaches the label who then decides to produce and market the song rights for which are still held by the singer as the creator of the song and the music. A contract is made where the singer has to develop a certain number of albums for the label or the label already has bought the songs from a songwriter and the singer is under contract only to sing. That’s how most pop singers worked at least. And when was the last time you heard a pop singer complain about getting paid? They don’t because they don’t own the songs.
          Singer-songwriters in the west often get stiffed by labels that are basically running after profits. So after a point, the singer-songwriter either just launches a label of their own or decides to renegotiate the contract with their existing label. It is crucial to remember that laws in the west are more clearly defined and their legal proceedings are swifter than they are in India. So they can work on that model.
          With Phurr specifically, Sony is taking a chance on content that is owned by them. It’s the global label trying to make more money than they can get out of just producing the music for a banner. That’s them showing that they have zero confidence in the SRK film their song is a part of. They needed the buzz for Diplo too. What percentage of the average SRK fanbase would also be a Diplo fan? SRK is maybe trying to bring the urbane club-going crowd to come to his films, to have them start to notice him again since they’re all mostly watching international films and shows and SRK isn’t their guy anymore. OK. Good.
          What about the housewives that don’t go clubbing? The ones that have been loyal SRK fans all this time and they now learn that they’d have to pay 100+ bucks for a single song! That’s the average subscription for a month on a music app. What percentage of housewives are buying the song that is available only on their phone and not on TV which they’d be watching when they’re doing chores? If Phurr is subscription only, it might get played at DJ events like weddings and clubs and college fests and gain an audience but even there the price point for the individual song is going to become an issue.
          And blocking your audience out of a song for 6 months is going to be really tricky. We get a new song and a new hit song every two weeks. 6 months down the line when the song is 6-months old, it will get played on the air when there would be other more current songs. Pritam being a part of this is just hilarious! I’m going to be watching both BO for the film and the collection for Phurr if that data gets shared by Sony.

          Like

          • You’re just pessimistically assuming way too much and overthinking this. Whoever said anything about regulation, nobody can force that kind of a rule or anything, ridiculous. And you continue to seamlessly tie in songs with films to the point of implying that you will only actually pay for the whole damn film itself and charging for (early access) songs is borderline cheating/greediness/unethical. So let me just repeat, songs can exist as an artform independently of the film irrespective of whether or not they add to the plot or any other context unlike say dialogues. And so I see it as fair game to treat it as such. People enjoy scores of songs on their own without knowing or caring what film they are from all the time.

            Your actual issue may be with the law which is fine. Just because there are no protective laws like in the West don’t mean owners have any responsibility to play nice. Change the laws if needed and not the other way round. This may well be boiling down to the age old socialism vs capitalism lol. Oh and I’m sure them housewives wouldn’t lose their minds waiting a few weeks to hear it if they cannot pay. Options. Optional.

            Like

          • I agree songs can exist without films. But again, do they? I’m not living in some alternate universe where India has a vibrant and dominant non-film music scene. So my perspective is on the industry as is with possibilities of “monetization” driving labels and studios to pick up the worst practises from the west just to make money off mediocre content.

            Like

          • Ok you seem insistent on somehow bringing up the non film music scene for reasons I don’t see and which for me has little to do with charging a fee for film songs, cool.

            So long as there are people willing to pay to hear it launch day there is no issue, it is no different to theaters having tickets at super premium first weekend and lowering it as time goes on. Oh and many people also do like Phurrr just FYI, myself not included.

            Like

          • Did I bring up the non -film scene or did you? My entire argument is based around Indian film music, paywall and what it means for the industry. People can pay diplo to do a private gig for them too and enough money will invite SRK to a wedding. Options you see. 😁

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s