Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 849405,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/849405/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 444,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kihika",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13216,
        "legal_name": "Susan Wakarura Kihika",
        "slug": "susan-wakarura-kihika"
    },
    "content": "applies here. I know we have had musicians who have sung for different sides of the political divide. There are many songs that we can think of kama Tano Tena and others. The musicians should benefit from that music since we mobilised and rallied our bases using these talents and gifts. It should never be that we benefit and they do not. I did not see this in the Bill. Maybe it is somewhere. During the campaign rallies some people would just show up and say: ―You have been playing so and so‘s song. Have you paid?‖ My question is: Do these musicians get that money? Again, with this Copyright (Amendment) Bill, I am sure they will benefit. I am also impressed that everything has been quite thought through. There is the exception that is given to those who are visually impaired.The distribution of music is done in a specialised format exclusively to those who are visually impaired or other Persons With Disabilities (PWDs) and they use it without being penalized in any way. I am happy that the Bill has taken this into account. I am a bit weary of Section 28 of the principal Act which is being amended in Clause 17. It says that the rights of an owner of a copyright in a sound recording are not infringed. This means that the rights of that owner are not infringed by the making of a single copy or the recording for personal and private use of the person making the copy. I do not know but if we give that exception then, that is why we continue to have artists and musicians making peanuts. I believe that there should be payment even when a single copy is downloaded or a recording is made, even if it is for personal use. In many of these scenarios, the music is for personal use. I am sure for those who have an i-phone like I do, we subscribe to Apple music and pay about 99 cents which translates to about a Dollar every month to be able to download whichever number of songs that you want every month. You can save the songs to your Apple phone so that the artistes can get whatever percentage of those cents that I download together with other millions of fans to that artiste. We should not exempt even for personal use. We should be able to walk to the store and buy a CD recording.That is the only way we can ensure artistes are compensated for their trade. With this exception, I am worried that we may continue to impoverish them. I have also seen where it is included in the Bill about the architectural copyright. As the Senate Majority Leader moved the Bill, he spoke about quite a bit to this. We have not seen a lot of creativity in that area in this country. Maybe as this amendment Bill becomes law, then the architects will also have to pull up their socks. I am sure most of you have visited many countries in the West. While taking a tour, you have come across these magnificent buildings. You are then told that so and so, an architect back in the 1800s, came up with a particular building. That should also be the case here so that we are able to record, for posterity, who came up with what and the credit is given to the proper people for that. I see in the Bill also that there is a percentage that has been assigned for the resale royalty, which is five per cent of the net sale price on the commercial resale of an artwork. I also see there are exceptions to this if the sale price is less than Kshs20,000, then there is an exception and the five per cent does not apply. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}