No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Fracturing Constitutional Rights: The Prosecution of Alleged Broadcast Infringers in Nigeria
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2020
Abstract
Infringement of broadcasts is often treated as a crime. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees that no-one can be prosecuted for any act that is not prescribed in a written law. Section 20 of Nigeria's Copyright Act only criminalizes dealing with infringing copies. A “copy” is defined in terms of material form. An infringing broadcast therefore connotes a recorded broadcast or a copy of a broadcast. This article argues that, statutorily, not every act that gives rise to civil liability for broadcast copyright infringement constitutes a crime. The article reviews the first broadcast copyright prosecution Court of Appeal decision in Eno v Nigerian Copyright Commission. Eno was unlawfully prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. The article seeks to stem the wave of prosecutions on the type of charges used in Eno. In the absence of law reform, the prosecutions based on the line of charges in Eno constitute a fracturing of constitutional rights.
- Type
- Recent Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London
Footnotes
*
PhD (London), BL. Professor of law, Babcock University (former dean); visiting scholar, Queen Mary University of London; visiting scholar, University of Cambridge; visiting fellow, British Institute of International and Comparative Law; partner, GO Sodipo & Co (barristers, solicitors and arbitrators). The author is indebted to Femi Fajolu, Professor Yemi Arowolo, Dr Bukola Olugasa and Teni Akanni who commented on earlier drafts. Any remaining errors are the author's.
References
1 Online Copyright Infringement in the European Union: Music, Films and TV (2017–2018), Trends and Drivers (20019, European Union Intellectual Property Office), available at: <https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/quantification-of-ipr-infringement/online-copyright-infringement-in-eu/online_copyright_infringement_in_eu_en.pdf> (last accessed 2 November 2020). Money for Nothing: The Billion-Dollar Pirate Subscription IPTV Business (2020, NAGRA - Digital Citizens Alliance), available at: <https://dtv.nagra.com/DCA-Money-for-Nothing-Report> (last accessed 2 November 2020). S Sharma “Signal piracy: A threat to Asia-Pacific broadcasters” WIPO Magazine (2018), available at: <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/01/article_0002.html> (last accessed 2 November 2020). Piracy of Digital Content (2019, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development), available at: <https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/piracy-of-digital-content_9789264065437-en#page3> (last accessed 2 November 2020).
2 A Foster “African football bosses call out beoutQ on piracy” (8 July 2019), available at: <https://www.ibc.org/trends/african-football-bosses-call-out-beoutq-on-piracy/4068.article> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
3 S Bainbridge “A guide to piracy protection for sports broadcasting rights-holders in the UAE” (8 December 2015), available at: <https://www.lawinsport.com/content/articles/item/a-guide-to-piracy-protection-for-sports-broadcasting-rights-holders-in-the-uae> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
4 S Sharma “Signal piracy”, above at note 1.
5 Wong, D “The EPL drama – paving the way for more illegal streaming? Digital piracy of live sports broadcasts in Singapore” (October 2016) 35/5 Leisure Studies 534CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Lambert, KS “Unflagging television piracy: How piracy of Japanese television programming in east Asia portends failure for a US broadcast flag” (April 2006) 84/5 Texas Law Review 1317Google Scholar.
7 The European Broadcasting Union “Legal & policy focus - Broadcasters’ rights: Towards a new WIPO treaty” (February 2019), available at: < https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/Position_Papers/Legal_focus_Broadcasters_rights_WIPO_treaty.pdf> (last accessed 4 November 2020).
8 B Sodipo “Business of sports: Issues in broadcasting, marketing, sponsorship” (address at the GO Sodipo memorial lecture, December 2009); B Sodipo “Towards a national position on proposed WIPO instrument on the protection of broadcasting organizations” (paper presented at the National Consultative Meeting on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Audiovisual Performances, NICON Luxury Hotel Abuja, 16 October 2010); Sodipo, B “Deregulation: The politics of funding and increasing local content in broadcasting” in Azinge, E and Owasonoye, B (eds) Deregulation: Law, Economics and Politics (2013, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies)107Google Scholar; B Sodipo “Issues and dimensions in pay subscription broadcast piracy in Nigeria” (paper presented at the National Broadcasting Commission / Nigerian Copyright Commission, Lagos workshop, May 2009); B Sodipo “The National Broadcasting Commission decree: Matters arising” (paper presented at the quarterly meeting of the National Broadcasting Commission and radio and television licence holders, December 1997).
9 P Nicholson “Saudis ‘welcome’ FIFA legal action in KSA as beoutQ piracy continues” (16 July 2018), available at: <http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2018/07/16/saudis-welcome-fifa-legal-action-ksa-beoutq-piracy-continues/> (last accessed 13 October 2020). For unauthorized broadcasts of tennis by the same station, see “Saudi Arabia-based channel beoutQ accused of ‘industrial-scale piracy’ over tennis broadcasts” (6 July 2018), available at: <https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/7/6/saudi-arabia-based-channel-beoutq-brazenly-stealing-tennis-broadcasts> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
10 Kaplan, D “Broadcast flags and the war against digital television piracy: A solution or dilemma for the digital era?” (2005) 57/2 Federal Communications Law Journal 325Google Scholar; “FCC lets fly anti-piracy ‘broadcast flag’” (2003) 18/23 This Week in Consumer Electronics 4Google Scholar. Broadcast flags have also been suggested in Japan: Lambert, KS “Unflagging television piracy: How piracy of Japanese television programming in east Asia portends failure for a US broadcast flag” (April 2006) 84/5 Texas Law Review 1317Google Scholar.
11 ABC, Inc v Aereo Inc 134 S Ct 2498 (2014) 128 Harvard Law Review 371. For more discussion on this case, see Samuelson, P “Updates on the intellectual property front” (2014) 57/11 Communications of the ACM 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J Hane “Aereo's TV internet broadcasts are a simple case of piracy” (21 April 2014) Wall Street Journal (eastern ed) at A13. See also discussion by P Rodriguez and MB Senosiain of ABC Inc v Aereo, Inc, available at: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-461> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
12 ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TV Catchup Ltd, CJEU case C-607/11 (fourth chamber) 7 March 2013; ITV v TV Catchup case c-275/15, 1 March 2017. Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch).
13 Pereira, AL Dias “Portugal: Broadcast works in bars and restaurants: ‘Resistant’ case-law to the CJUE's rulings” (2016) 6/4 Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Digital Communication Network (Nig) Ltd v NCC [2013] LPELR-20797 (CA). For more information on the anti-piracy drive in Nigeria, see: A Ezekude “Anti piracy drive field result” (2012) WIPO magazine. Nwogu, MI Obianuju “The challenges of the Nigerian copyright commission (NCC) in the fight against copyright piracy in Nigeria” (2014) 2/5 Global Journal of Politics and Law Research 22Google Scholar, available at: <http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Challenges-Of-The-Nigerian-Copyright-Commission-Ncc-In-The-Fight-Against-Copyright-Piracy-In-Nigeria.pdf> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
15 Dias Pereira “Portugal”, above at note 13.
16 European Broadcasting Union “Legal & policy focus”, above at note 7 at 1; A Doyle “Toward a broadcasting treaty dealing with signal piracy” (paper presented at the African ministerial conference 2015: Intellectual Property for an Emerging Africa, Dakar, Senegal, 3–5 November 2015), available at: <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/africa/en/ompi_pi_dak_15/ompi_pi_dak_15_cluster_ii_9.pdf> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
17 Burroughs, B and Rugg, A “Extending the broadcast: Streaming culture and the problems of digital geographies” (2014) 58/3 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274696843_Extending_the_Broadcast_Streaming_Culture_and_the_Problems_of_Digital_Geographies> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
18 [2009] 10 NMLR 175.
19 “NCC, DSS pounce on illicit broardcast [sic] outfits, arrest copyright pirates” (14 March 2020) Beats-Onit, available at: <https://www.beats-onit.com/2020/03/14/ncc-dss-pounce-on-illicit-broardcast-outfits-arrest-copyright-pirates/> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
20 Several persons have been tried and more are being tried. Some have been convicted, sentenced and fined or have served terms of imprisonment. See, for example: NCC v Godwin Kadiri charge no FHC/B/43C/2010 judgment delivered 17 December 2012 in Benin, [2010] 53 NIPJD (FHC); NCC v Joseph Daomi charge no FHC/MKD/CR/38/11 judgment delivered 27 February 2012 in Markurdi; NCC v Micheal Paul charge no FHC/LF/CR/2/2013 judgment delivered 3 October 2013 in Lafia and charge no FHC/LF/CR/11/2013 judgment delivered 8 October 2013 in Lafia.
21 Micheal Paul, ibid.
22 NCC v Emordi Henry Chukwuma charge no FHC/ABJ/CR/90/13 judgment delivered 19 June 2013 in Abuja.
23 Micheal Paul, above at note 20.
24 Joseph Daomi, above at note 20.
25 Eno, above at note 18; NCC v Ubi Bassey Eno, Otu Bassey Eno and Digital Communication Network (Nig) Ltd charge no FHC/31c/2003.
26 Chukwuma, above at note 22. The defendant's sentence was effectively two and a half years.
27 Ubi Bassey Eno, above at note 25, delivered 12 December 2006 in Calabar. Digital Communications Network Ltd was fined ₦5,000 on the first count and ₦2,000 each on the second and third counts.
28 Burroughs and Rugg “Extending the broadcast”, above at note 17.
29 Paul Onwughalu v Federal Republic of Nigeria [2019] LPELR-47313 (CA).
30 Constitution, sec 36(8).
31 Id, sec 36(12). Ifeanyi v FRN [2018] LPELR-43941 (SC).
32 Ogbomor v State [1985] LPELR-2286(SC); Aoko v Fagbemi [1961] 1 All NLR 15 400; Abidoye v FRN [2013] LPELR-21899 (SC).
33 Constitution, sec 36(12).
34 Ibid.
35 Yargata Byenchit Nimpar JCA in Omatseye v FRN [2017] LPELR-42719 (CA) at 7–8, para A. See also: FRN and Another v Lord Chief UdensiIfegwu [2003] 15 NWLR (pt 542) 113; Udoku v Onugha [1963] 2 All NLR 107; Captain Asake v Nigerian Army Council [2007] 1 NWLR (pt 1015) 408; Aliyu v FRN [2014] All FWLR (pt 720) 1272; Prince Joshua Paulson v The State [2011] LPELR 4875 (CA); Major Adebayo v Nigerian Army and Another [2012] LPELR-7902 (CA); Hon Hembe v FRN [2014] LPELR-22705 (CA).
36 B Sodipo “Nigeria accedes to Rome Convention: Is Rome satisfactory for Nigerian performers?” (January 1994) Entertainment Law Review 11.
37 “Nigeria joins four key copyright treaties” (4 October 2017), available at: <https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/news/2017/article_0017.html> (last accessed 13 October 2020).
38 Cap C28, 2004 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. The act was amended in 1992 and 1999.
39 B Sodipo “The Nigerian Copyright Act 1988, as it affects the entertainment industry” (1993) Entertainment Law Review 17.
40 TRIPS-plus in the sense that neither TRIPS nor Rome requires rental rights for recorded broadcasters; see TRIPS, art 14(3). For Rome Convention, see Sodipo “Nigeria accedes”, above at note 36.
41 Copyright Act, sec 8(1)(a), (b) and (c).
42 Id, sec 15(1)(d).
43 Id, sec 15(1)(a).
44 Id, sec 30 reads in full: “Criminal Liability in respect of infringement of performer's right (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 28 of this Act, a person who does any of the acts set out in the said section 28 shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know that his conduct was an infringement of the performer's right, be liable on conviction - (a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding N10,000; (b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine of N50,000; (c) in all other cases, to a fine of N100 for each copy dealt with in contravention or to imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment. (2) A court before which an offence under this section is tried shall order that the recording or any other part thereof be delivered to the performer.”
45 This id, sec 30 provision is absent from sec 28.
46 Id, sec 51(1).
47 Ibid.
48 A fixation of a broadcast is arguably done when the broadcast is fixed in any definite medium of expression now known or later to be developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or device as under sec 1(2)(b).
49 Dapianlong v Dariye [2007] 8 NWLR (pt 1036) 239.
50 United Savings Association of Texas v Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates Ltd 484 US 365 at 371 (1988); Abegunde v The Ondo State House of Assembly [2015] 244 LRCN 1 at 374.
51 A-G Federation v Abubakar [2007] All FWLR (pt 389) 1264 at 1289–91; Elelu-Habeeb v A-G Federation [2012] LPELR-SC.281/2010; Marwa and Others v Nyako [2012] LPELR-7837 (SC).
52 IMB v Tinubu [2001] 15 NWLR (pt 740) 690; Tukur v Government of Gongola State [1999] 4 NWLR (pt 117) 517 at 579.
53 Ojokolobo v Alamu [1987] 3 NWLR (pt 61) 377; Aqua Ltd v Ondo State Sport Council [1988] 4 NWLR (pt 91) 622 at 641–47; Salami v Chairman LEDB [1989] 5 NWLR (pt 123) 539 at 550–55; Buhari and Another v Yusuf and Another [2003] LPELR-812 (SC).
54 Garner, BA (ed) Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed, 2019, Thomson Reuters)Google Scholar.
55 Copyright Act, sec 40(5).
56 Ojokolobo v Alamu [1987] LPELR-2392 (SC); University of Ibadan v Adamolekun [1967] 1 All NLR 213; Lawal v GB Ollivant Ltd [1972] 3 SC 124; Ahmed v Kassim [1958] 3 FSC 51; Yerokun v Adeleke [1960] 5 FSC 126.
57 Copyright Act, sec 51(1).
58 Skye Bank Plc v Iwu [2017] 16 NWLR (pt 1590) 24; Olaleke Obadara and Others v President, Ibadan West District Council Grade ‘B’ Customary Court, Iddo [1965] NMLR 39; Incorporated Trustees of Paradigm Initiative for Technology Development and Others v A-G Federation and Others [2018] LPELR-46655 (CA).
59 Australian Copyright Act, sec 10.
60 Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Home Video Pty Ltd [2001] RCA 1719 (Fed Ct, Aus), where an Australian court held that the temporary storage of a motion picture in the RAM, during the viewing of a DVD, does not constitute “reproduction” of the movie. See Middleton, G “Australia: Intellectual property - copyright” (2002) 8/5 Computer & Telecommunications Law Review 81Google Scholar.
61 Secs 297–98 and 17(5). See also UK Broadcasting Act 1990, sec 179.
62 Above at note 18.
63 Digital Communication Network (Nig) Ltd v NCC [2013] LPELR-20797 (CA).
64 Eno, above at note 18 at 177.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 Godwin Kadiri, above at note 20.
68 Copyright Act, sec 21(1).
69 Id, sec 21(2).
70 Id, sec 21(3).
71 Id, sec 21(4).
72 464 US 417 at 442; 220 USPQ 665 at 678 (1984).
73 Sony was based on three reasons, including the fair use defence that is somewhat similar to Nigeria's fair dealing defence. Fair use is open ended but fair dealing is purpose-specific and subject matter-specific.
74 2008–2012 6 IPLR 1.
75 Eno, above at note 18; Godwin Kadiri, above at note 20; Joseph Daomi, above at note 20; Micheal Paul, above at note 20.
76 Samuelson, P “Intellectual property and the digital economy: Why the anti-circumvention regulations need to be revised” (paper presented at the symposium on the legal and policy framework for global electronic commerce: A progress report, 1999) 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 519Google Scholar; Ginsburg, JC “Copyright use and excuse on the internet” (2000–01) 24 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 1Google Scholar; Kurtz, LA “Copyright and the internet: World without borders” (1996–97) 43 Wayne Law Review 117Google Scholar; Yu, PK “Anticircumvention and anti-anticircumvention” (2006–07) 84 Denver University Law Review 13Google Scholar; Okediji, RL “Trading posts in cyberspace: Information markets and the construction of proprietary rights” (2003) 44/2 Boston College Law Review 545Google Scholar; G Dutfield “To copy is to steal? TRIPS, (un)free trade agreements and the new intellectual property fundamentalism” (paper presented at the International Studies Association, 2006 annual meeting) at 1.
77 Godwin Kadiri, above at note 20.
78 Eno, above at note 18 at 177.
79 Joseph Daomi, above at note 20.
80 Godwin Kadiri, above at note 20.
81 Ibid.
82 Transbridge Co Ltd v Survey International Ltd [1986] 4 NWLR (pt 37) 578.
83 BBN (Nig) Ltd v Alhaji S Olayiwola & Sons Ltd and Another [2005] LPELR-806 (SC).
84 Ugba and Others v Suswam and Others [2012] LPELR-9726 (SC).
85 A-G Bendel State v A-G Federation [1981] 10 SC 1; (1981) 12 NSCC 314.
86 Din v A-G Federation [1988] 4 NWLR (pt 87) 147; Garbo v Federal Civil Service Commission [1988] 1 NWLR (pt 71) 449; A-G Bendel State v Aideyan [1989] 4 NWLR (pt 118) 646 SC; IBWA v Imallo (Nig) Ltd [1988] 3 NWLR (pt 85) 633 SC; Utih and Others v Onoyivwe and Others [1991] LPELR-3436 (SC).
87 (2013) LPELR-20797 (CA).
88 Ouma, MN “Optimal enforcement of music copyright in sub-Saharan Africa: Reality or a myth” (2006) 9 Journal of World Intellectual Property 592CrossRefGoogle Scholar.