A copyright owner may charge what the market bears — the CCI accepted T-Series’ rate as not excessive despite being well above its competitors’. What it would not accept was a floor requiring radio stations to pay for roughly 198 hours of music a month whether they played it or not.
The complaint
The Competition Commission of India investigated Super Cassettes Industries (T-Series) following a complaint by HT Media Limited, which operates Fever 104 FM. The radio station alleged that T-Series abused its dominant position through excessive licensing fees and mandatory minimum commitment charges (MCC).
Defining the market
The CCI determined the relevant market to be private FM channels playing Bollywood music — roughly 80% of India’s 240 private FM stations.
All India Radio was excluded, since only government stations could broadcast news and current affairs, placing AIR in a materially different position.
Dominance
The Commission found that T-Series held:
- 50% market share by revenue;
- rights over 58% of the top 100 songs played on radio;
- annual turnover exceeding ₹400 crore — around four times its nearest competitors; and
- acquisition of rights to roughly 48 Bollywood films annually, against competitors’ 10 to 11.
The fees
Broadcast licensing fee. T-Series charged ₹661 per needle hour, against PPL’s ₹404 and competitors’ ₹400–450. The CCI held this rate not excessive, taking into account T-Series’ acquisition costs and its risk of financial loss on the films whose music it bought.
That finding deserves emphasis, because it is often lost in summaries of the case. A dominant rights holder charging more than 50% above its competitors was not, on these facts, abusing its position through price. Dominance does not oblige a licensor to price at the market average, and the CCI accepted the commercial justification.
Performance licence fee. T-Series uniquely charged both a broadcast fee and a performance fee. That matter being sub judice, the CCI deferred judgment on it.
Minimum commitment charges. T-Series required a minimum of ₹2,50,000 per month per station, guaranteeing payment for roughly 198 hours of programming regardless of actual use. The CCI identified this as an abuse of dominance.
The distinction the CCI drew is the useful part. The price per unit was justifiable by reference to cost and risk. The minimum commitment was not, because it does not price the product — it forces a licensee to pay for music it does not use, foreclosing budget that would otherwise go to competing labels. A station that has already paid for 198 hours has little reason to license anyone else’s catalogue.
The order
The CCI directed T-Series to:
- cease imposing minimum commitment charges; and
- modify existing contracts accordingly.
It imposed a penalty of ₹2,83,28,000 — calculated at 8% of average licensing turnover.
Why it still matters
The case sits at the intersection of copyright and competition law, and the principle generalises well beyond FM radio. A copyright owner’s exclusive rights are not a defence to abuse of dominance: holding rights lawfully says nothing about whether the terms on which you license them foreclose competition.
The structure struck down here — a minimum spend unrelated to consumption — recurs across content licensing, and the reasoning applies wherever a dominant rights holder can use volume commitments to absorb a licensee’s entire budget.
The takeaways
- Dominance was established on share, catalogue depth and turnover.
- A rate 50% above competitors was not excessive — cost and risk justified it.
- Minimum commitment charges were abusive — payment for music not used.
- Copyright is no defence to abuse of dominance — the licensing terms are what matter.
Frequently asked questions
Can a copyright owner charge whatever it likes for licences? Broadly yes, but a dominant licensor’s terms can amount to abuse of dominance — here the rate was accepted while the minimum commitment was not.
What are minimum commitment charges? A minimum periodic payment a licensee must make regardless of actual usage — here roughly 198 hours of programming a month per station.
Why were they held abusive? Because they require payment for content not used, absorbing a licensee’s budget and foreclosing competing licensors.
Does holding copyright protect against competition law? No — lawful ownership of rights does not immunise the terms on which those rights are licensed.
Useful official resources
- Competition Commission of India
- The Copyright Act, 1957