Ari Bias's Side Responds to Agnez Mo's Statement: This is Not Just a Royalty Issue

Kapanlagi.com - Composer Ari Bias along with his attorney, Minola Sebayang, responded to the statement from Agnez Mo regarding the copyright case they are facing. Previously, Ari Bias sued Agnez Mo for singing the song Bilang Saja without permission.

The Central Jakarta Commercial Court has ruled that Agnez Mo is guilty and must pay a fine of Rp1.5 billion. Minola Sebayang emphasized that this decision has gone through a legal process in accordance with applicable regulations.

"With the judge rejecting the exception, the first thing we must acknowledge is that the lawsuit is indeed valid. It turns out the lawsuit is worthy of acceptance and even a ruling. If it is said that there are already regulations, we ask which regulations," said Minola at his office in the Kuningan area, South Jakarta, Wednesday (19/2/2025).

According to him, this case is not just about royalties, but relates to the economic rights of the song's creator. He explained that many parties misunderstand the difference between Article 9 and Article 23 in the Copyright Law.

"Once again we emphasize, this is not about royalties even though its implementation pertains to economic rights. But this is not solely about royalties." There are also many misunderstandings when there is a mix-up between the provisions of Article 9 of the Copyright Law under the title of the economic rights of creators, clashing with Article 23 under the chapter in the title of the rights of performers," he said.

Minola explained that Article 9 regulates the economic rights of creators, including the rights to perform their works. Meanwhile, Article 23 regulates the rights of performers. According to him, Agnez Mo's mistake lies in the use of the song Bilang Saja in three concerts without the appropriate permission as stipulated in Article 9.

"Actually, there is nothing wrong here. Because there are three concerts that Agnez Mo held using the song Bilang Saja that did not go through the mechanism that should have been followed according to the provisions of Article 9," he explained.

1. Not an EO

Minola also questioned the assumption that concert organizers or event organizers (EO) are responsible for copyright payments. He emphasized that those who use the song are still the performers, in this case, Agnez Mo.

"We think, who are the people who perform the creation, could it be a parking attendant? Could it be an EO? It’s definitely the performers who carry out the creation, logically it should be like that," he said.

Moreover, he mentioned that in the trial, there was no evidence showing that Agnez Mo included royalty payments in her concert contract. "This line of reasoning is also what we presented in court," he said.

2. Already Taken Various Approaches

Meanwhile, Minola revealed that this lawsuit was not filed casually. He had tried to resolve this issue through various means before finally resorting to legal action.

"Ari also did not immediately file a lawsuit. There is a process, through discussions with his management, then there is a formal warning, but there was no response. No reply. Maybe they think what Ari is fighting for is bullshit. They are confident that what they have thought all along does not exist, but in fact, it does exist," said Minola.

3. Applicable Regulations

Minola also touched on the applicable regulations in this case. According to him, there cannot be regulations under the law that contradict the Copyright Law.

"If there are regulations below it, my question is, can regulations under the law contradict the law? So if it is said that there is this government regulation, there is the statute of the Collective Management Institution (LMK) for example, is this logically permissible? Of course, it is not permissible. If there is a conflict, which one do you think would prevail, the government regulation or the law?" he stated.

Furthermore, he emphasized that Article 23 does indeed state that the use of songs is allowed as long as there is payment to the Collective Management Institution (LMK). However, in this case, the problem lies in the permission that should be obtained from the songwriter.

"In Article 23 paragraph 5, there are indeed words that say as long as payment is made to LMK, it can be used. But this is in the context of the economic rights of the performers," he explained.

4. No Need to Debate Outside the Legal Framework

According to him, Article 9 paragraph 2 clearly states that the use of copyrighted works for commercial purposes must obtain direct permission from the creator.

"In Article 9 paragraph 2, it is stated that anyone who uses a copyrighted work for commercial purposes must obtain permission from the creator. So it is not said to pay the royalties first, then in paragraph 3 you can use it as long as you pay, that doesn't exist," he asserted.

In addition, Article 113 mentions that performances conducted without permission from the creator can be subject to sanctions, either in the form of imprisonment or fines of up to Rp500 million.

"In Article 113 it is stated that if a performance is conducted without permission, then there are sanctions, both imprisonment and a fine of Rp500 million. We are talking about this matter," he said.

Minola emphasized that this case has already been decided in court, so there is no need to debate it outside the legal framework. "It is not only us who believe that it exists, the Commercial Court also believes that it exists. Therefore, our lawsuit was accepted, the exception was not granted, and then the main case was decided. So the battle is already over, why bring it up to a battle outside the court, debating everything," he said.

(kpl/far/.ums)