Mayo Ayilaran: S’Court’s Ruling Has Restored MSCN’s Glory

The Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN), the pioneer in the collective management organisation/administration of musical products in Nigeria once straddled the nation’s entertainment industry like a colossus before its hegemony was challenged. However, the climax of the protracted legal battle was the Supreme Court’s judgement which gave the collecting agent, a go ahead to return to its eminent position. In this interview with Festus Akanbi, the Chief Executive Officer of the organisation, Mr Mayo Ayilaran speaks on the new dawn in the implementation of copyright laws in Nigeria, non-renewal of COSON’s licence, the implications of the apex court rulings, the state of compliance by users of musical contents and other issues

Now that you are back on track after almost a decade of inactivity, have you missed anything in the music industry?

Yes, we missed quite a lot but we also gained quite a lot because those experiences, those exuberances are period of training for us; the period of acquiring experiences. Rather than feeling dejected and abandoning the ship to escape, we stood and we are fine-tuning the logic behind what we are doing. As at the time we were facing those challenges, we were not as deep as we are now. Those challenges made us so convinced about what we are doing. We are so convinced about the status of this organisation.

We are so convinced that those encumbrances that were placed on our path were for a short period and once we can surmount then, the sky would be the starting point because one of the issues was the confusion surrounding the concept of copyright vis-a-vis the person who can be called the collecting society or who can do the job of collection and distribution of royalties.

How will you describe the status of copyright administration?

If there were no breaks in the way we were going, we would have arrived at the Promised Land a long time ago because we were progressing gradually but those challenges halted our progress and even took us way back. In 1987, we carried our first distribution (to artistes) from the money we were able to collect. In 1988, we were distributing money to artistes and the money was increasing gradually. Of course, we have not broken the barriers of negotiating and getting broadcasters to pay. As at that time, it was broadcasters who were paying the bulk of royalties to artistes across the world. So, our broadcasters had not started.

The only broadcaster that started then was Daar Communication, which started when it got a licence to operate in 1994 and the first thing Chief Raymond Dokpesi did was to get a copyright licence from us. Imagine if we had continued consistently on that, the story would have been different today. But now when we surmounted our challenges, we knew where we were, so it was not a case of having to start afresh or starting to learn the rudiments of the job. We already know the rudiments but we just started and began to move forward.

What is the status of MCSN in copyright administration following the Supreme Court judgement?

We have been given a status that has largely become impeachable because the Supreme Court cleared the way for us from any other encumbrances that may be posed either by regulatory challenges and so on. The most interesting thing about this is that we are the only one who has qualified to be in that position. People were arguing with us that without the licence of NCC, we cannot operate, but we said we had been there before NCC was established. We had been there before the law that sets the rule for collecting societies came and that law cannot operate retroactively based on the provisions of section 50 of the act and the Supreme Court agreed with us. It was the Supreme Court that exempted us from being necessarily approved before we can operate but any other organisation that comes after that must submit to NCC.

But we look at ourselves and say we cannot be bigger than the regulator. It’s better to be on the same page with our regulator so that the people that we are working for can benefit. So rather than raising our shoulders to confront the NCC, we said no, you are our bosses and carry us on your shoulders and they have graciously done that and we are working hand in hand to ensure that copyright administration moves smoothly in this regard.

How are you fairing as a monopoly given the failure of COSON to get its licence renewed, are you up to the task?

I won’t say that the problem COSON is having with NCC has placed us in a position of monopoly because the COSON is still in court fighting its cause. We believe the market is free for anybody to enter but the question will remain, if you are entering the market, do you have the requisite qualifications, and to be able to be effective in this matter, your requisite qualifications are stated in the Copyright Acts clearly. Can you have the kind of repertoire that will make you relevant and competitive in the market? If you can have this, you can enter. So, it’s just like comparing DSTV with other television stations in Nigeria, ‘DSTV as far as we are concerned is a quasi-monopoly.

Bringing that to our situation, where we are today, we are not preventing anybody from coming to the market and that will also not prevent us from working together with whoever comes up so that the market can be good for everybody.

Can you please talk about MCSN’s repertoire both local and foreign?

Before the crisis and the challenges that nearly crashed the organisation, our repertoire could be said to be 99 per cent of any work-musical, artistic, literary or dramatic, or audiovisual works were in our repertoire because by then when you hear any music from any part of the world, we controlled it.

We had a contract to that effect. If you are showing British or American films, we had that contract that is the music in it. Even within Nigeria, the guilds that operate in Nollywood, that is Actors Guild of Nigeria and the Association of Film Producers, are all affiliated to MCSN through contracts that are still valid. So, when the Supreme Court judgement came, it said everything we had including both the foreign is back to us. When they brought COSON, what they did was to destroy our repertoire and hijack them and take it over. It was like a war situation. When you go to war and you defeat somebody, you take the spoils of war. So, they took all our repertoires as spoils of war but they never knew we never surrendered neither did they realise that we were not vanquished nor dead.

In our state of hopelessness, we continued to struggle to come out top from the Supreme Court and once you record that kind of victory, the next thing is for you to reclaim your spoils of war. One thing which people are yet to understand is that whatever COSON or anybody for that matter had done to the contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court has become null and void because everyone is expected to return to status quo ante, which was the position we were before we went to court.

How can the lots of musicians be improved under the current copyright law and is there any aspect of copyright law that should be amended?

Presently, their interest is being well protected though at a slow pace due to the nature of how we operate. We do things by the process. For instance, if you are playing our music, for instance, we would not barge on you. We will first make you understand why and what you have to pay. We will give allowance for arguments. Some will say they bought the record they are playing and so there is no need to pay for copyright. It means we still need to explain to you before you realise the need to pay and begin to comply. And by the time you begin to pay, we have processes to determine how much is paid to musicians.

Multichoice is an example of such an organisation. We had been discussing with them for years but they were so reluctant to listen to us. It even got to a point that they were the ones who sued us, asking the court to stop us from asking them for any payment or from disturbing them. In the process too, we counterclaimed against them. At the end of the day, their case was dismissed and our counterclaim was upheld because the court asked them to pay us N5.95 billion. So, when we get this money, the benefit goes to musicians. We will determine how many years the money covers.

We will go to the archive to determine, who were the members that have contributed works that were played on DSTV channels and those members would be paid money for those years covered, then the continuous payment as time goes on. It’s not only DSTV, we also have the Federal Radio Corporation, Nigerian Television Authority.

I must admit that Arise Television is complying and I give kudos to Prince Nduka Obaigbena for being a shining example because he called me one night at a period, I was not expecting anything from him. He told me to send an invoice to cover two years, it was like a dream. He didn’t give us any stress, so this is part of the progress we are making.

Are you satisfied with the Copyright Act as it is now?

I’m satisfied with the Copyright Act as it is for now. I believe we should allow it to run. The 1988 Act is a very good law but two amendments came and they were targeted at us but they were destroyed at the Supreme Court cleared the whole things away because when the 1992 amendment came, it was then they introduced this collective stuff that the Nigerian Copyright Commission should approve collecting societies. When we saw that we were still qualified to apply and we were refused, we went back because there was another clause that we were operating with, the owner assignee and exclusive licence. We owned the rights and with this, you cannot stop me from exercising my rights under the constitution. They went back in 1999 to introduce section 17. But the Supreme Court told them that we predated that section and the provision of the law did not say the law should operate retrogressively.

For me, I want to see what they wanted to bring in and what they wanted to take out before I can join the agitation for a new law. Of course, we know that we are operating a democracy and I know the people at the national assembly cannot just wake up one morning and change the law.

Is it right to say that copyright is a big business?

Yes, copyright is a big business for the creator, whose work is out there and whose work is in high demand. Many people’s works are put on social media, either on YouTube or played on the radio like most of our business because they just want to ‘blow’ but the business aspect is what we are talking about.

Many of them live by performance fees but the most assured income for them comes from copyright. If somebody sits in a room and put Sunny Ade’s music on the internet and it is streamed to a lot of people, that is a big money for Sunny Ade, just for single streaming of one of his work and when you look at happenings around the world, all the sharing that is going on. If you want to buy a CD from the international market, a CD costs $15, and let’s assume you have 10 tracks. By the time you share $15 among 10 tracks, that will give $150. With people like Sunny Ade with so many songs, that will open an avenue to higher returns. And we are now holding everybody down to pay for what they consume. It’s a big business for them but for us trying to organise it for them, we are a company limited by guarantee, we cannot make a profit because we only take administrative cost from every money we collect and return the remaining money to the owners of the works.

As a director of MCSN, you can only get a sitting allowance and if you render some special service, you would get your consultation fee. But the money that is earned from musicians as royalties, you cannot get a dime unless your work is among what you collected.

How do we enforce copyright laws?

Our enforcement agencies must be up and doing. They must wake up to their responsibilities. The rights owners must also wake up to their responsibilities. If you don’t report a crime to the police, they cannot step in. In this kind of crime, there must be a complainant who will be ready to go through all the hogs.

How soon are you going to distribute royalties?

We are looking at this year. We will resume this year. We would have done one last month, but we couldn’t due to some technical issues. There are some specific royalties that we need to distribute for example, if you want to use the work of a particular artiste, maybe as adverts and you have approached us and we have given you the licence after you just paid the money. We don’t need to keep the money in any pool. We need to go and give that person his money quickly and that is where the distribution starts. Then we are working on the pool and very soon we will start the distribution.

What is the nature of the relationship between MCSN and PMAN?

We have a good working relationship with musical associations. PMAN is the umbrella body for all Nigerian musicians. Of course, there are other branches like the Gospel Musicians Association (GOMAN) and others. We have a working agreement with PMAN whereby MCSN represents the interest of all performers in Nigeria. There is a section of the NCC Act that recognises the interests of the performers. The bulk of PMAN members do have that right. PMAN is also being involved in how this organisation is run on behalf of its members. If we are not doing it properly, they will be able to tell us. That synergy is putting in place a sustainable structure that will outlive everybody that will be working for the industry.

Can you please throw more light on your new app, Gocreate to smoothen your operation?

Our operation is not limited to licensing and collecting money from the people. It is also about distributing that money equitably in a transparent manner. Before now, we had been using our human perception to carry out some of these functions. If we collect, say N100 from Raypower and we want to distribute that, we will be tempted to share the money in terms of popularity of the artistes and the frequency of using the songs.

However, Gocreate app will help us solve that problem. For that period, Gocreate will monitor and deliver to us the report of the analysis to the seconds and if it has done that, we will not give the app the money to be shared with the affected people. It will do that equitably.