The music bill being deliberated by lawmakers is under scrutiny due to some unclear and controversial provisions.

Article 5 is one of the most discussed parts of the bill, particularly the provision concerning the prohibition of (i) inciting violence and other unlawful behaviors, (ii) bringing negative foreign culture, (iii) blasphemy and (iv) defamation. Violators face imprisonment and fines.

There are several issues with this provision. First, most of the prohibitions have been regulated in other regulations. Further, there are no good reasons why musicians should be treated differently from others in terms of influencing society.

Some have argued that the music bill would follow the “success” of Law No. 33/2009 on film, particularly similar limitations in its Article 6. But one should first answer these questions: Has the Film Law been practically implemented? Has the film industry grown significantly? Is the growth of the film industry (if any) due to the Film Law? And has the Film Law and its restrictions obstructed the progress of the film industry? Only after answering such questions could we discuss how the music bill could follow the “success” of similar provisions in the Film Law.

Music is a creative way to convey untold stories and deliver strong criticism against society and government. Such restrictions would clearly inhibit creativity. Thus, if the legislators want to make criminal-related provisions for musicians in the music bill, they should make ones that guarantee that the right of expression of musicians in relation to their musical works should not be subject to criminal penalties.

Further, the prohibition of bringing negative foreign culture is vague and obnoxious. Three of the most successful musicians from Indonesia who can be considered successful in promoting Indonesian music and culture to the international music industry are Anggun C. Sasmi, Agnez Monica and Brian Imanuel, known as Rich Brian.

They have in one way or another adopted foreign culture in their music and their life. Is it negative? Maybe some think so. Considering this relativity, the music bill would endanger many musicians who actually want to develop and help Indonesian music and culture to “go international”.

Music is about taste. To bring our musicians and music into international music competition, we should also accommodate foreign (including western) music perspective and taste. And we cannot encourage our musicians to “go international” while threatening them with jail for “becoming western”.

So unless the purpose of the bill is to keep Indonesian music and musicians for only Indonesians or “easterners”, this provision would defeat the bill’s purpose.

Further, the music bill also obliges musicians (i) to only conduct music performances at an event held by a registered promoter or music event organizer and (ii) to take a competency test to be acknowledged as a professional musician. These provisions would clearly be obstacles to new musicians in Indonesia. Being in a very competitive industry, new musicians would face many challenges and problems in the early stage of their careers, including how to develop their technical skills, how to protect their image, how to sell their music and in understanding protection of their work under an intellectual property regime.

Article 42 of the music bill obliges restaurants, hotels and other entertainment places to play traditional music. Indeed, we should appreciate traditional music and people who promote traditional music. But it does not mean we should force people to play or hear music that they do not want to. There are myriad ways to promote Indonesian traditional music, and forcing people to hear something that they do not expect to hear would not be one. In contrast, this provision could turn away potential patrons of restaurants and hotels.

Another problem is the high possibility that the bill would overlap with other laws, e.g. the Copyright Law and the Criminal Code. Thus, legislators should instead review the implementing regulations of related laws. This may be a better way to regulate the music industry, instead of issuing a new law on music.

Further, the legislation priority list also includes the creative industry bill supported by the Creative Economy Agency (Bekraf). As music is a part of the creative industry, legislators should first examine how the creative industry bill would work before discussing the music bill, to avoid unnecessary overlapping.

The sense of urgency in issuing a new music law is unclear. However, any such law should focus on encouraging the government to create a positive environment for Indonesia’s music industry through incentives, instead of threatening musicians with criminal penalties.

Further, it would be nice to see legislators work out how to make our education system more accommodating for all young people to pursue their dreams including to be highly skilled musicians and artists.

We should appreciate legislators’ attention to the music industry by initiating the bill. But at present the bill is unnecessary and a catastrophe.

____________________

The writer is a Master of Laws candidate in intellectual property law at Queen Mary University of London. He is also the founder and CEO of Kreasi Legal, a research and education body focusing on laws and policy on economy creative industry.

Popular

Is Indonesia really ready to embrace dual citizenship?

Tens of thousands seek better lives in Jakarta. But is the city losing its draw?

Elon Musk's Starlink granted licences to operate in Indonesia