Mixed reactions in Kampala over the Copyright Amendment Bill have exposed a deeper economic tension between protecting creative intellectual property and sustaining the business models of broadcasters in Uganda’s evolving media and entertainment industry.
Presented for its second reading by Norbert Mao, the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2025 seeks to introduce mandatory royalty payments for musicians, producers, and performers whenever their work is commercially used by radio and television stations. Government argues the reform is long overdue in an industry where monetisation has lagged behind consumption.
Mao framed the Bill as a corrective intervention in a market failure where creators generate value but capture little of it. “Musicians are frustrated that their works are exploited… without any earnings,” he told Parliament, positioning the law as a tool to formalise revenue streams in Uganda’s largely informal creative economy.
At its core, the proposed legislation attempts to shift the industry from a promotion-driven model—where artists rely on airplay for visibility—to a rights-based revenue model aligned with global intellectual property standards.
According to Stephen Baka, Chairperson of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, the Bill could unlock new income channels, particularly in digital distribution segments such as ringtones and streaming-linked services.
However, lawmakers and industry observers warn the reform could disrupt existing media economics.
David Kabanda raised concerns about the financial burden on broadcasters, many of whom already operate on thin advertising margins. His argument reflects a long-standing industry trade-off: free airplay has historically acted as marketing currency for artists, particularly in emerging markets where direct music sales are limited.
This tension highlights a key policy risk—whether imposing mandatory royalties could inadvertently reduce airtime for local content, as broadcasters seek to minimise costs.
On the other side of the debate, Rachel Magoola defended the amendments, aligning Uganda with international copyright frameworks where performance royalties are standard. Her position signals a push toward integrating Uganda’s creative sector into global value chains, where intellectual property rights underpin revenue generation.
Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka attempted to strike a middle ground, noting that the law would allow negotiated agreements between broadcasters and artists. This introduces a market-based mechanism, but also raises questions about bargaining power asymmetries—particularly for lesser-known artists.
From an investment and industry growth perspective, the absence of a clear cost-benefit analysis—highlighted by Michael Lulume—remains a critical gap. Without quantifying potential revenue gains for creatives against increased operational costs for broadcasters, policymakers risk introducing regulatory uncertainty into both sectors.
Outside Parliament, concerns from youth advocate Martin Luther Nyanzi point to a structural inequality risk. If royalties become mandatory, broadcasters may prioritise established, commercially viable artists to justify costs, potentially crowding out emerging talent that depends on free exposure.
Recognising these competing economic interests, Speaker Anita Among halted debate and called for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis—effectively pausing what could become one of the most consequential regulatory shifts in Uganda’s creative economy.
The Bill represents a pivotal moment. Its final shape will determine whether Uganda can transition to a monetised, rights-driven creative sector—or whether regulatory overreach could constrain media growth and limit market access for new artists.