KATHMANDU, NEPAL – Sanjay Baral wrote his first song when he was just 12 years old.
Today, Baral, 35, has more than 2,000 songs to his credit – 200 of which artists have professionally recorded. Some are national and international hits.
On his YouTube channel, some videos featuring his songs have racked up nearly 1 million hits. Some of his other popular songs play throughout Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital, as ringtones and in restaurants and other public places.
Despite achieving what most here would consider a successful songwriting career, Baral says he cannot make ends meet. In addition to writing songs, Baral works several jobs, including as a teacher and a radio disc jockey, for 12 hours to 14 hours per day.
“If I could sustain my livelihood as a lyrics writer, I wouldn’t have to work so hard just to survive,” Baral says.
Chief among his economic challenges is the fact that he does not receive royalties from the songs he has written.
In 2002, Nepal implemented intellectual property rights legislation that ensured royalties for income that one’s intellectual property generates for up to 50 years from the date of creation. But Baral has never received a cent from the playing of his songs, he says.
“Though my songs have become popular and have gained fame, I have not received royalties from the songs,” he says. “And it hasn’t been easy to earn a living by just working in the music industry.”
Development of digital technology has made it easy to pirate musical creations without paying royalties, causing economic hardship for the artists. But the songs’ users, including businesses and the media, say regulations on how much money or how to pay musicians in Nepal are unclear. Individuals also knowingly or unknowingly download music illegally. Differences in national and international laws when it comes to digital technology add to confusion. Artists are joining organizations to protect themselves, but distribution of royalties among the artists can be a problem. Artists can take legal action, but government officials report that they have not received any formal complaints seeking compensation. To resolve any anomalies, the government is preparing policy drafts to ensure clarity on the issue.
Nepal’s 2002 intellectual property law, known as Nepal Copyright Act 2059, guarantees that artists receive income from the use of their creations for up to 50 years from the date of creation. The act mandates a financial penalty and also includes jail time for the unauthorized use of any artist's creation.
It is mandatory for any person or business to obtain an artist’s permission if the party transfers or broadcasts an artist’s creation, says Bisu Kumar K.C., the registrar at the Nepal Copyright Registrar's Office. Otherwise, a district court will fine the unauthorized user 10,000 Nepalese rupees ($100) to 100,000 rupees ($1,000), sentence the perpetrator to six months in jail or both. A second violation causes the penalty to double.
Until a decade ago, the sale of CDs and audiocassettes provided musical artists with income and more security, says Mahesh Khadka, general secretary of Music Royalties Collection Society Nepal, an organization established in 2007 to protect musicians’ rights.
But as music consumption moved online, the collection of royalties did not receive enough attention, he says. With people increasingly listening to pirated music on the Internet and mobile devices, local artists have lost income.
The problem is not unique to Nepal. Global music piracy is responsible for billions of dollars in losses each year, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, an organization that represents the recording industry worldwide. The federation has 1,300 members in 66 countries, not including Nepal. Although the group’s Digital Music Report 2013 notes that one in four Internet users regularly access pirated content, it also reports that music industry revenues rose by 0.3 percent in 2012, the industry’s first year of growth since 1999.
In Nepal, musical artists say that increased piracy and lack of royalties cause them financial strain, forcing them to find alternative jobs or to borrow money.
For the last 10 years, Chhembal Lama, 38, has made his living as a lyricist and composer. Many of his songs have been successful and popular, he says.
But like Baral, Lama says his income from his musical creations is no longer sufficient. The decline forced him to leave the music business for the trekking and tour business in order to care for his family. Music is now just a hobby.
“I continue creating music to sustain my heartfelt feelings, even if I have to borrow money from friends sometimes,” Lama says.
In order to collect royalties, artists must register with the MRCSN or Performers Society of Nepal, the organizations authorized to collect royalties on behalf of artists in Nepal.
Suresh Chandra Adhikari, chairman of MRCSN, says the organization is taking steps to streamline royalties rates and processes to benefit artists. In the past, creators faced greater financial problems because there was not a fixed rate for royalty payments.
But in 2012, MRCSN prepared guidelines – called Royalty Maapdanda, 2069 – establishing fixed royalties rates for cable networks, nightclubs, television channels, department stores, movie theaters, exhibition halls, radio stations, public transport vehicles and hotels, he says. The organization based the guidelines on provisions from the 2002 copyright law, making them legally enforceable.
For each song, the guidelines require television channels to pay 1 percent of total advertising income per day in royalties and department stores to pay 3 rupees (3 cents) per square foot of the store per day. Artists should receive 9 percent of total income from ringtone sales. Hotel royalty rates depend on hotel grade. For example, five-star hotels must pay 1,000 rupees ($10) per room annually, while one-star hotels owe artists 200 rupees ($2) per room per year.
But businesses and media companies throughout Kathmandu say confusion persists about when and how to pay royalties to artists.
Radio and television stations are among the most negligent in paying royalties to artists, Khadka says.
“There are more than 100 FM radio stations and more than a dozen television channels in the country which play our songs regularly but do not pay any royalties,” Khadka says. “The media companies that use our songs to generate their own income are not ready to pay us our rightful royalties.”
Dhanendra Bimal, the deputy executive director of the government-owned Radio Nepal, says that for the past two years, Radio Nepal has sent 1 percent of its income from advertisements to MRCSN for distribution to the artists.
But Shilu Adhikari, program coordinator of the Kathmandu radio station Citizen FM, says in a phone interview that her station has not paid any royalties yet.
“It is not clear how much royalties is to be given to the different artists involved,” she says. “None of the artists have come to us asking for royalties.”
Adhikari asks for clearer guidelines on the process for paying royalties.
“It has to be clear as to who gets the royalties and how much,” she says. “Whom should we give royalties: the music company, artist or the producer? We are aware of the rights of the artists, though.”
The process of playing songs and paying royalties becomes even more complicated when some artists offer to pay the station to play their music, Adhikari says.
“Some artists looking for popularity have offered to pay money in order to broadcast their songs,” she says. “We get confused as to whether we should give them royalties or not.”
Radio is not the only platform where artists may hear their songs played without authorization. Khadka cites public vehicles, concerts, shopping malls and restaurants among other nonpaying beneficiaries of artists’ intellectual property.
“We have to check our pockets to see if we have enough money to pay the bill in the restaurants, whereas they enhance their incomes by attracting the customers by playing our songs,” Khadka says.
Consumers also download music illegally, which infringes on artists’ intellectual property rights and hurts their income.
With rapid digital technology advancement, artists are gaining faster, wider popularity, says Suresh Chandra Adhikari of MRCSN, a composer of more than 5,000 songs. But at the same time, the simultaneous rise in online music piracy deprives the artists of their intellectual property rights.
Often, consumers do not know that downloading music for free is illegal, Khadka says.
“When people pirate and use songs illegally, they aren’t aware that they are committing a crime,” Khadka says. “Common people do not know whether such piracy is a crime.”
But some business owners in Kathmandu who play and sell music they download illegally say they do know they are committing a crime.
Bikash Thapa, who sells and distributes CDs and DVDs in Kathmandu, admits to downloading music for his business, even though he knows it is illegal. No authorities or rights agencies have contacted him so far, he says.
Differences in national and international laws when it comes to digital technology also add to confusion. While many businesses are not paying royalties, many artists are not aware of their right to claim royalties from digital technology entities.
Some service providers that do collect royalties for downloading songs, ranging from radio stations to hotels, do not pass the money along to artists, Suresh Chandra Adhikari says.
“Songs are downloaded online, but the service provider doesn’t pay royalties to the concerned artists,” he says.
He alleges that YouTube, a video-serving network, and other electronic forums are violating the rights ensured by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, an international agreement governing copyright.
But YouTube does not provide royalties for voluntary uploads, according to its terms and conditions. The law does not protect self-published works, and a voluntary upload voids any right to royalties, according to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Meanwhile, more artists are now joining groups to protect their rights and to raise awareness, K.C. says.
“Even if the current situation looks bad, steps have been taken towards improvement in the protection of intellectual property rights,” K.C. says. “Artists of various professions have started organizing themselves for the protection of rights and for spreading awareness among the people. These are positive steps in the right direction.”
About 400 members have registered with the Performers Society of Nepal, a nongovernmental organization established in 2009 to protect music performers’ intellectual rights, says Tulasi Parajuli, the organization’s general secretary.
“The number of the members registered in our organization has increased because of the growing awareness about the intellectual property rights of the music artists,” Parajuli says.
More than 670 musicians, including lyricists and composers, have registered so far with the MRCSN, Khadka says. The organization has collected more than 1.65 million rupees ($16,300) in royalties since 2007 and has distributed payments to more than 200 artists.
But MRCSN’s distribution process is hardly seamless, Baral says.
“The distributions made to the artists are neither regular nor adequate at all,” he says.
Khadka agrees.
“Division of royalties between the concerned artists has not been sorted out, which has created problems in the distribution of royalties in Nepal,” Khadka says. “That is why MRCSN’s general meeting has prepared the Royalty Maapdanda, 2069.”
Khadka urges artists to be active and to demand royalties for the use of their work.
“MRCSN is continuously making the artists aware about their rights,” he says.
K.C., the registrar from the Nepal Copyright Registrar's Office, says artists can also take legal action.
“If there are written complaints of intellectual property rights violation, action will be taken immediately,” K.C. says.
But artists are not yet writing formal complaints, he says.
“Informal complaints have been heard in public programs, but the concerned artists have not filed them formally yet,” he says.
Regardless, the government should be doing more to enforce its anti-piracy laws, Suresh Chandra Adhikari says.
“Depriving the artists to get their due royalties is the major problem, and the government is to be blamed for not enforcing the existing law,” he says. “For this, the government has to effectively enforce the legal provisions applicable to both the public and the private sectors.”
The government’s inspection and implementation should be regular in order to stop piracy, Lama says.
“You love your creation as your own child,” Lama says. “If the government monitors properly for royalties’ collection, we could live through our work, and the artists could work even better.”
Police have trained and have stationed one officer in each of the country’s 75 districts to enforce the 2002 law since October 2011, K.C. says.
As a result of the law and the increased enforcement, the court has made decisions on 25 cases since 2002 to enforce penalties from 15,000 rupees ($150) to 700,000 rupees ($7,000), he says. One offender received a 20-day jail sentence.
“For the awareness of the artists, coordination between the related agencies has been established, and motivational programs have also been started by the registrar’s office,” K.C. says. “Likewise, initial talks have begun to develop music as an industry.”
Still, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation must develop more national policies, says Rajendra Sigdel, the ministry’s undersecretary, in a phone interview.
“The present Intellectual Property Rights Act isn’t enough to solve all the issues,” Sigdel says. “Therefore, the need of policy formation at the national level has been felt, and suitable amendments will be introduced within this year. We are holding talks with the concerned artists for an effective policy formulation on these issues.”
Artists also need to be aware of their rights, Baral says.
“If we are aware of our rights now, only then our children will be able to create music and other outputs of art without economic hardships, but with self-respect,” he says.
Interviews were translated from Nepali. Shilu Adhikari and Suresh Chandra Adhikari are not related.
