Kadri Mohamad Jabatkan Six Points Assessment Of The Agnez Mo Case

Kadri Mohamad (Instagram @thrkadrimohamad)

JAKARTA - Singer who is also a legal practitioner, Kadri 'The Singing Lawyer' Mohamad gave his analysis of the decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court which granted Ari Bias' lawsuit against Agnez Mo.

Through an upload on the official Instagram account, the Makara band vocalist said that the legal application in the decision was wrong.

As is known, said Kadri, Agnez was found guilty of performing a song by a composer at a nightclub without paying royalties, even though the royalty obligation was in the hands of the organizers.

"The judge should have the belief that his decision will not have a broad impact on the ecosystem, so be careful in implementing the law," wrote Kadri, citing a statement on the upload, Tuesday, February 4.

Kadri also described his analysis through six points, which included his views on the mechanism for payment of music royalties, the impact of decisions, and support for Agnez Mo to take further legal steps.

The following are the points written by Kadri Mohamad:

1. Those who have a legal obligation to pay are the organizers, not the artist Singer or musician. The payment goes through the LMK/LMKN scheme, not directly to the composer. Seeing the law, it is not only the article in the law. See in one unit all derivative rules up to the Decree of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights regarding tariffs. Tariffs are calculated from ticket prices, production costs, etc. (That's the information that the organizers have, meaning this is the organizer's obligation). Also look at the norms of habits that have been in effect for years, that this is not the artist's obligation. See the statement of the government's Director General of Intellectual Property as the representative of the government authorized to the interpretation of the law, saying that this is the obligation of the Organizer. Take as a whole.

2. This decision will make the hustle and bustle of changing the practices that have been in effect so far based on the application of existing legal rules and habit norms. Please note NORMA HABIT IS A SOURCE OF LAW according to basic theory.

3. The issue of royalty collection that should be addressed should not even be borne by artists. Wrong logic. Composer and singer are true partners in one line. Since the beginning of the partnership on record. Komposer's job is to give a good song to artists and the artist's job to perform it and popularize it well. The goal is the same, so that the product sells well.

4. Will open speculative and opportunistic efforts to sue the same thing to singers who have not received direct permission from Komposter (almost all singers appear, yes, just appear because royalty matters are the issue of the organizers).

5. Will make the following concerts not dare to appear if there is no direct permission from the composer. This is legal uncertainty.

6. Agnez Mo must file an appeal and in order to get moral support from all parties, so that the ecosystem is not damaged due to legal uncertainty.