Indonesia’s long-running debate and uncertainty over who should pay live performance royalties has reached a more harmonious stage.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Agnez Mo v Ari Bias and the issuance of Ministerial Regulation 27/2025 (MOL Reg 27/2025) together reshape the country’s copyright landscape.
While the court exercised restraint by deciding the case on procedural rather than substantive grounds, the new regulation removes lingering doubt. In Indonesia, the responsibility for paying live performance royalties rests with concert organisers or venue owners, not performers.
Supreme Court resolves performer dispute on procedural grounds
The dispute in Agnez Mo v Ari Bias began when songwriter Arie Sapta Hernawan (known as Ari Bias) sued performer Agnes Monika (known as Agnez Mo) for performing his song Bilang Saja without permission at three concerts in 2023.
In January 2025, the Commercial Court ruled that the singer had infringed copyright and ordered her to pay Rp1.5 billion (about $90,000) in damages, reasoning that performers are directly responsible for securing licences.
In August 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment based on procedural grounds. In Decision 825 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025, the court concluded that the lawsuit was errors in persona and had a lack of parties.
The court observed that the promoter and the collective management organisation (CMO) were not included as parties, even though both had clear roles in the performances.
The court emphasised that a live concert involves many participants (eg, event organisers, venues, backing musicians and CMOs) and that singling out the performer alone was legally insufficient.
By resolving the case on procedural grounds, the court avoided a direct pronouncement on liability under Article 23(5) of the Copyright Law. This careful approach preserved room for policy clarification through regulation rather than through judicial precedent.
Following the decision, Ari Bias publicly confirmed that he would not file a reconsideration appeal (Peninjauan Kembali), acknowledging the court’s ruling as final. With that, the decision became final and binding.
Regulatory clarity arrives
The week before the Supreme Court decision, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights issued MOL Reg 27/2025. The regulation implements Government Regulation 56/2021 on the Management of Music Copyright and Royalties, in which Article 20(4) explicitly states: “The obligation to pay royalties for the commercial use of musical works in public services lies with the event organiser or the business owner.”
This single sentence brings long-awaited clarity. It codifies the principle that performers are not the ‘users’ contemplated by the Copyright Law and aligns Indonesia’s practice with global norms, where venues or promoters – in other words, those deriving commercial benefit from ticket sales – are the ones required to pay royalties through collective management systems.
Impact on industry and enforcement
The practical focus now shifts toward implementation and compliance.
For enforcement authorities, the decision provides clear guidance: pursuing performers for royalty non-payment is no longer consistent with the regulatory framework. The emphasis should instead fall on monitoring promoters and venues that host commercial performances without fulfilling royalty obligations.
Beyond compliance, this transition also calls for greater transparency from the National Collective Management Organisation (National CMO, also known as LMKN) and CMOs in collecting and distributing royalties to build the trust of both creators and users.
Elsewhere, the House of Representatives is deliberating the Draft Copyright Bill, which is expected to strengthen the legal copyright framework in Indonesia and create a fairer, more transparent ecosystem for music royalties.
Although it was controversial, the Agnez Mo case proved to be a landmark moment for Indonesia’s music ecosystem. It exposed long-standing weaknesses in royalty management and inspired both policymakers and industry players to take reform seriously. Ideally, this change should have taken place without the need for a public dispute, but it has nonetheless moved the industry forward.
This article was first published on WTR in October 2025.
