MTN Nigeria Communications Limited does not enter into direct agreements with artistes, but rather through its value added service partners, an insider has told Technology Times amid criminal charges filed against the largest mobile phone company by the nation’s copyright agency.
The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), the government agency responsible for all copyright matters, has filed criminal charges against MTN Nigeria and four others, over alleged copyright infringement, according to NAN.
The four other defendants in the lawsuit are Karl Toriola, the chief executive officer (CEO) of MTN Nigeria; Nkeakam Abhulimen, Fun Mobile Ltd.; and Yahaya Maibe, in the suit filed by the copyright agency with number FHC/ABJ/CR/111/2024 in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, the report stated.
The MTN source explained that the mobile phone company deals with VAS Aggregators that function as one-stop-shop for these VAS contents, and not directly with individual artistes as a standard business practice, and in compliance with the rules of its industry regulator, NCC.
Alleged copyright infringement against MTN Nigeria: What are the facts of the case?
NCC alleged that the defendants used musical works and sound recordings of Mr Maleke with subsisting copyright as caller ringback tunes without the authorisation of the artiste.
The artiste’s musical works and sound recordings allegedly infringed upon included 911, Minimini-wanawana, Stop Racism, Ewole, 911 instrumental, Radio, Low Waist, and No Bother.
The defendants were also alleged to have distributed the musical works to their subscribers without authorisation, thereby infringing on the rights of the artiste.
In the third count, the defendants were alleged to have in their possession, other than for their private or domestic use, the artiste’s musical works and sound recordings.
Meanwhile, an insider in MTN Nigeria, who spoke on condition of anonymity told Technology Times on Monday that the mobile phone company has not been served in the suit in question.
The source explained that the standard practice within the mobile phone company is to forge partnership with Value Added Service Aggregators otherwise called VAS Aggegators that are licensed by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), the telecoms industry regulator, to offer a range of value added services that are different from regular voice calls in form of text, videos, multimedia or other lifestyles content that are accessible online or for download at extra costs.
As stipulated by NCC’s licensing terms, VAS service providers provide an intelligent platform that collects VAS content or applications from VAS distributors and routes them to subscribers through operators’ networks.
The MTN source explained that the mobile phone company deals with VAS Aggregators that function as one-stop-shop for these VAS contents, and not directly with individual artistes as a standard business practice, and in compliance with the rules of its industry regulator, NCC.
Meanwhile, in the suit, NCC, the copyright agency, in the three-count charge, alleged that the defendants, between 2010 and 2017, “offered for sale, sold and traded for business’’, infringed the musical works of a multidisciplinary artiste christened Maleke Idowu Moye, without his consent and authorisation.
According to the copyright agency, the alleged offences are contrary to and punishable under section 20 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, Cap. C28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
The case has yet to be assigned to any judge, and no date has been fixed for the mention.
The civil remedies available to a person whose copyright has been infringed include: Damages, Injunction, Accounts for profits, Conversion rights, and inspection and seizure order. Copyright infringement also carries criminal liability with penalties of fines and terms of imprisonment.
Section 36(a) of the NCC Act provides that copyright is infringed by any person who, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, does or causes any person to do an act that constitutes a violation of the exclusive rights conferred under the Act.
Author
Home
