I think, when we are speaking of Copyright amendments in India (given the discussions have started "privately")- what is extremely essential is to think of inclusivity of perspectives. We need to see whether our law even represents our culture in the first place?

When it comes to music or dance- it clearly doesn't. We have been a primarily oral, collaborative and improvisational culture- so rather than focussing on more authors rights and independent musicians rights etc., we need to question whether signing Berne was a good decision?

Do those principles of originality, author as an individual composer, performer-author divide and even the requirement of fixation, represent our culture? Or are an imposition. Of course we NEED to go beyond keeping entertainment superstars like Javed Akhtar at the forefront

They will never question ownership, as they are making millions of it. Pls involve ground level artists, and ask whether these legal stipulations actually represent what they practice?
Also, is the author-owner divide even working? are they even getting access to an audience?

Is the cultural dialogue monologic and elitist? @brianlfrye wrote that IP is a privilege. Well yes, it reeks of privilege- as the landlords are those who have the capability to show stuff to the audience as the "first mover". What if I thought and sang the same tune before you...

but I just didn't have an audience, due to umm - structural inequalities? Why is the law unfair to me? Because I'm poor? Fuck the law then.
This is what we need to see. Is the law for us? Or for certain superstars and landlords - who think they are "it"?
Let's strive to question