Responding To Ahmad Dhani's Lawsuit, Once Mekel: Understand First The Copyright Law, Just Talk

Once Mekel Di Kios Ojo Keos, Jakarta, Jumat. (Rifky Nugraha/VOI)

JAKARTA Responding to Ahmad Dhani's lawsuit regarding royalties on Tuesday, Once Mekel said that the frontman from Dewa 19 did not understand the provisions of the Copyright Law.

Understanding the Copyright Law no. 28/2014, especially for Indonesian music industry players, is a must. If not, then it is certain that those who do not understand, or do not want to learn to understand, will get lost. And what is important, the people who get lost consider themselves on the right path," said Once Mekel when met at Kios Ojo Keos, Jakarta, Friday.

According to Panji Prasetyo as Once Mekel's attorney, Ahmad Dhani's statement is clearly a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Copyright Law, which is in accordance with Article 87 of the Copyright Law jo.

Article 10 of Government Regulation Number 56 of 2021 concerning the Management of Song Copyright Royalties or Music (PP 56/2021), Once as a performer only has the obligation to pay royalties on performing rights to the State Collective Management Institute (LMKN).

If a performer (through the organizer or EO) has obtained a license and paid royalties to LMKN, then the performer cannot be considered to have violated Article 9 of the Copyright Law. This is clearly regulated in Article 87 paragraph (4) of the Copyright Law as a special provision regarding the performance rights in the Copyright Law.

"Then, the question is whether a creator can commercially prohibit singers from using the creator's creation? The answer, no," explained Panji Prasetyo.

Based on Article 87 of the Copyright Law, the creator has given power and authority to LMK (Collective Management Institution) and LMKN to act on behalf of the creator in granting permission to use songs, collect, and distribute royalties for performing rights.

Strictly speaking, article 23 paragraph (5) of the Copyright Law states: 'Everyone can make Commercial Use of Creation in a performance without asking permission from the Creator first by paying a reward to the Creator through the Collective Management Institute'.

The granting of permission by LMKN on behalf of the creator, is enough with the way users pay tariffs to LMKN. As long as users have paid the royalties rate for performing rights to LMKN, the user no longer needs approval from the songwriter.

With a regulatory design like this, there is also no legal basis for creators to prohibit users from using their songs, because with the creator handing over power to LMKN, it means that he has given approval to anyone to use the work of the creator.

Arrangements regarding further performance rights are also regulated in Article 10 of PP 56/2021, which states that everyone who makes commercial use of songs or music in the form of commercial public services must pay royalties through LMKN, as stipulated in Article 10 of PP 56/2021.

"Thus, it is clear that a creator cannot arbitrarily prohibit specifically a person from using his creation commercially," Panji continued.

Terlepas Once adalah salah satu pihak yang turut mempulerkan lagu bucipan Ahmad Dhani saat dirinya menjadi vokalis Dewa 19, hak dari Once jelas dilindungi oleh UU Hak Cipta sebagai masyarakat yang menggunakan sebuah dibuat secara komersial dan telah melakukan kewajiban hukum yaitu membayar royalti kepada LMKN.

This confirms that Once as a community only carries out the existing positive law, namely the Copyright Law and other laws and regulations, including PP 56/2021.

If Ahmad Dhani does not agree with the legal system in Indonesia, the Republic of Indonesia has provided a forum, namely to submit a judicial review application to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Instead, it prohibits the public from using its creations.

The key is understanding! Understand the law first, then talk," said Once.

Therefore, through his attorney, Once firmly rejected all baseless accusations from Ahmad Dhani against him.

"We will defend the rights of Once Mekel, in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations," concluded Panji Prasetyo.

As previously known, Ahmad Dhani forbade Once Mekel to perform Dewa's songs. The prohibition was then accompanied by criminal threats in Article 113 of the Copyright Law which contained a sentence of 3 to 4 years in prison, as well as a fine of 500 million rupiah to 1 billion rupiah.

This applies to singers or song users who are deemed to have violated Article 9 of the Copyright Law, namely regarding the obligation to ask permission from the creator for the use of economic rights.