Afrikona Opinion is a series featuring perspectives from industry leaders shaping the global music business.
In this edition, Abaasa Rwemereza, the Founder and Executive Director of AUMEX (Amplify Uganda Music Expo), a platform focused on skills development, enterprise growth, and market access for East African artists, shares his perspective.
Abaasa Rwemereza, who holds a Master’s degree in Global Entertainment and Music Business from Berklee College of Music, dives into why Uganda’s latest copyright amendment may be less about new rights and more about enforcement.
His views are presented below.
A few weeks ago, a short clip of Sheebah Karungi dancing outside Parliament made its way across my timeline.
It was one of those moments where everything lands at once: the energy, the symbolism, the sheer audacity of a Ugandan pop star celebrating outside the house of lawmakers because they had just done something for artists.
I felt something shift. Not just in the industry, but in me. For a few minutes, I was 18 again, the version of me that dreamed about Grammy stages and believed the entire East African music ecosystem was on the verge of something massive.
Watching Sheebah dance, I could really see it all opening up. The structures, the money, the recognition. It felt like hope for the Ugandan music industry.
Then the feeling settled, the way feelings do, and I realised something embarrassing: I had no idea what had actually just happened. I knew Parliament had passed a copyright amendment.
I knew people were celebrating. But I could not tell you what the amendment actually said, what it changed from the 2006 law, or whether any of it would make a material difference in the life of a working artist.
So I did what I do. I opened an AI chat, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and started asking questions. What follows is a record of that conversation, the one where my excitement slowly turned into something more thought provoking.
The Conversation
• • •
Me:
What is the copyright amendment in Uganda that just got passed? It seems like the law was already robust. What justifies the hype?
AI:
The Parliament of Uganda recently passed the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on March 17, 2026.
While the previous 2006 law was foundational, this amendment addresses modern digital gaps that previously made it difficult for creators to monetise their work effectively.
It introduces digital revenue sharing, specifically a 60/31/8.5 split on Caller Ring Back Tones between artists, telcos, and aggregators.
It also introduces stricter penalties of up to UGX 50 million in fines and 10-year jail terms for copyright infringement, mandatory URSB registration for enforcement, extended protection to 75 years after death, and rules for orphan works and folklore.
The new law also introduces a copyright management system to track usage in real time.
Me:
I do not believe digital content protection was not part of the 2006 bill. Why was it being amended? And was there a law before 2006? What was the central change back then?
AI:
You are right. The 2006 Act did include language about electronic data banks and computer programs. It technically covered digital content. What it did not do was define how revenue from digital platforms should be split.
Before 2006, the operative law was the Copyright Act of 1964, essentially inherited British colonial legislation.
The big shift in 2006 was the introduction of neighbouring rights, which extended protection to performers, producers, and broadcasters. Before that, only the songwriter had strong legal standing.
Me:
Wait. Broadcasters and businesses are now strictly required to pay for commercial use. Was that not already the case? If it was not, then why does UPRS exist? What and how have they been enforcing for the last 40 years?
AI:
This is where it gets interesting. UPRS has existed since 1985. They were enforcing royalties under the old laws, but enforcing is a generous term.
Under the 2006 Act, if a bar or hotel did not pay, it was a civil matter. UPRS had to sue them. The legal fees often exceeded the royalty itself. Many businesses treated payment as a negotiation, not a legal obligation.
The amendment changes this by making non payment a criminal offence with real penalties and by involving UCC and the police in enforcement. It moves royalty collection from a civil struggle to a criminal enforcement matter.
Me:
That makes sense. What about the management system you mentioned earlier? A law cannot technically introduce a copyright management system. That is basically what BMAT has been doing for years. Why would you need a law to introduce it?
AI:
On BMAT, you are right. The law is not inventing the technology. BMAT and similar monitoring tools already exist, and UPRS has used them. What the law does is remove the right of a business owner to refuse installation.
Previously, a bar could say no to monitoring hardware. Now, UCC and the police can mandate it. A private monitoring tool has effectively become a state enforced compliance system.
Me:
Fair enough. What about ringback tones? CRBT is not a modern platform. Streaming splits are not determined by law, or at least they should not be.
Ideally, they are determined by licensing agreements between streamers and rights owners through aggregators and labels.
Also, will amending the law really make broadcasters and businesses pay? This seems like an enforcement problem.
Who is to say they will not treat this law the same way they treated the 2006 one? That said, the part about UCC and police forcing installation of tracking devices in commercial venues seems interesting.
AI:
You are absolutely right. This is an enforcement play presented as a legislative update. CRBT peaked in the early 2010s and is not cutting edge technology. Streaming splits globally are handled through private contracts, not statute.
The reason Uganda legislated the CRBT split is that artists, through UNMF, argued they had no bargaining power against MTN and Airtel. The statutory split is a form of protectionism that turns a lopsided business negotiation into a legal mandate.
As for whether businesses will take it seriously, that depends entirely on enforcement. The 2006 Act had rules but lacked teeth and budget. With this amendment, copyright is moving from private contract law to public regulatory law.
If a business does not have the required monitoring hardware or licence, UCC can revoke its trading licence. That is a much bigger threat than a civil lawsuit.
Will it work? That depends on whether enforcement actually happens. If the police and UCC do not inspect venues, the law risks becoming ineffective, just like the 2006 Act.
After breaking down the amendment through several exchanges, here is where I landed:
This is not a new law. It is an enforcement upgrade. The 2006 Act already gave creators rights. What this amendment adds is a way to protect those rights through criminal penalties, monitoring systems, and the involvement of UCC and the police.
The CRBT split is both a strength and a risk. Legislating a 60 percent artist share addresses a real power imbalance between artists and telcos. However, locking revenue splits into law is a double edged move.
Markets evolve faster than legislation. If CRBT revenue continues to decline, the law enforces a fixed split on a shrinking revenue stream.
More concerning is the precedent it sets. If Parliament can dictate CRBT splits, it could eventually extend to streaming, sync, or other revenue streams. That uncertainty may discourage investment.
For artists, the 60 percent floor could quietly become a ceiling, since businesses are unlikely to negotiate above what the law already mandates.
The mandatory monitoring hardware is a significant provision. Removing a business owner’s right to refuse surveillance technology in their premises represents a major shift.
Whether this is necessary or excessive depends on perspective, but it is one of the most enforceable aspects of the law.
The URSB registration requirement also has strong potential. Making registration a prerequisite for enforcement creates clarity and allows intellectual property to be recognised by courts, banks, and enforcement agencies.
The real test is institutional, not legislative. Uganda has not lacked good laws. What it has lacked is consistent enforcement. If UCC and the police do not actively inspect venues, this amendment risks becoming another well intentioned but ineffective law.
It also raises questions about whether enforcement will be applied evenly across the country.
Back to Sheebah
I do not regret how I felt watching that clip. The hope is real. Something did shift. Parliament engaged with the creative economy in a way that signals political recognition of the sector’s importance.
However, celebration and understanding are not the same thing. This amendment is not necessarily a revolution. It is better understood as an infrastructure upgrade that is long overdue. And infrastructure only works if it is maintained.
If you are an artist reading this, the most immediate step you can take is to register your work with URSB. Under this framework, your ability to benefit from the law depends on it.
If you are building within the music industry, keep asking difficult questions. The passage of a law is not the same as real change. The law is only as effective as the institutions that enforce it.
