Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This qualitative case study investigates the role of the Zimbabwe Musical Rights Association (ZIMURA) in copyright protection, with particular emphasis on its evolving responsibilities and the challenges it faces. The study examines how ZIMURA safeguards copyright, the transformations in its roles, and the obstacles that hinder its effectiveness. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews with eight purposively selected key informants, supplemented by archival records, document analysis, and newspaper articles. The findings reveal that ZIMURA predominantly operates within the traditional framework of an “intermediary” but increasingly incorporates elements of an evolving collecting society to adapt and survive in a volatile environment. Despite these efforts, ZIMURA faces numerous social, economic, technological, and legal challenges that weaken its ability to effectively protect the copyrights of its members. To thrive in this turbulent landscape and maximize the financial benefits for its members, the study argues, ZIMURA has expanded its roles beyond the conventional scope of a collecting society. This research offers valuable insights into the dynamics of copyright management in the global South, with a specific focus on Southern Africa.

Keywords

Copyright protection digital technology evolutionary theory intellectual property rights Performance rights organisations musical copyright

Introduction

The growing importance of intellectual property industries to the global economy has brought renewed scholarly attention to Performance Rights Organizations (hereafter, PROs) (Andersen, 2000). Also known as Collection Management Organizations (hereafter, CMOS),¹ the core functions of PROs are to collect revenue from music users and distribute the same to copyright holders. However, to remain relevant in the new ecology of the music industry PROs must innovate or die (Haunss, 2013; Oron, 2019). Their mandates should transcend revenue collection and royalty distribution to embrace new responsibilities (Hellenic Foundation for European Policy, 2009: 7). In Sub-Saharan Africa, where music copyright protection is considered weak (Forere, 2017), PROs grapple with rampant copyright protection infringements which undermine their efforts to maximize the financial benefits of their members. In Zimbabwe, intellectual property rights infringements have impoverished musicians (Nyathi and Magurawushe, 2023b) compelling the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (ZIMURA) to engage in activities that fall outside the purview of traditional collecting societies. However, little scholarship, if any, has been devoted to examining how collecting societies are evolving in the digital era.

Drawing on insights from the evolutionary theory of organizations, this qualitative case study seeks to fill this knowledge gap through an examination of one of the oldest collecting societies in Southern Africa, the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association. Roles played by ZIMURA, the shifting nature of these roles, and the obstacles faced by the organization during its operations are questions at the core of this article.

The rest of this article is structured as follows: following this introduction, the next section reviews the existing literature to position the study within broader scholarly discussions. The subsequent section outlines the research methodology employed. The findings of the study are then presented and discussed, followed by a concluding section that offers critical reflections on the implications of the findings.

Performance rights organizations: an overview

Scholarship on PROs, particularly on the African context is scant. Much of the existing literature focuses on the industrialized democracies of the West, where these institutions have a much longer history (Andersen, 2000; Arezzo, 2015; Wallis et al., 1999). The first performing rights organization (PRO), the Society of Authors, Composers, and Music Publishers (SECEM), was established in France in 1851 by a group of authors who felt inadequately compensated for the public performance of their works (Wallis et al., 1999). This came in the wake of an 1848 legal ruling involving French composer Ernest Bourget, who refused to pay his bill at a Paris café where his music was being performed without permission or recompense (Wallis, et al., 1999: 11). The dispute went to tribunal, which ruled in Bourget's favor, establishing the principle that authors and composers hold performing rights to their music and are entitled to remuneration whenever and wherever it is publicly performed. This landmark decision set a precedent, paving the way for the creation of PROs across Europe and the United States (Wallis, et al., 1999:11)

In the African context, origins of PROs are tied to the continent's colonial heritage while indigenous PROs are a post-colonial era phenomenon. Before independence, British colonies and protectorates were governed by the Copyright Act of 1911 under which the Performing Rights Societies (PRS) was founded in 1914 (Ubani and Adeyeni, 2023). The PRS catered for all musical copyright holders within the British Empire regardless of nationality of the author (Wagennar and Marx, 2012). Much of the copyright legislation and collective copyright governance structures reflect Africa's colonial legacy and many of the PROs in former British colonies are modeled around PRS. Over the years, there have been significant changes in the way in which post-colonial PROs in Africa operate as they adapt to local and global forces. Gervais (2006: 17) notes that while PROs have “once been considered revolutionary, the pivotal role they continue to play as facilitator in the copyright industry is more properly characterized as evolutionary.” This indicates that PROs try to adapt to their changing environments to survive.

The changing landscape of performance rights management

Existing literature tends to focus on the traditional roles of PROs, such as revenue collection and distribution (Ola, 2013; Oriakhogba, 2018; Wallis et al., 1999; Xu, 2023), while overlooking their emerging roles. Few scholars have explored the evolutionary roles of PROs, and those who have typically examined them through the lens of Western democracies. Traditional perspectives on PROs highlight their intermediary roles such as revenue collection and distribution, monitoring of the uses of copyright music, and negotiation with prospective users as well as licensing of users as their core functions (Martinez, 2024). Such scholarship amplifies the “practicality” and “convenience” argument (Ola, 2013: 8) which favors collective management to individual management of rights (Ubani and Adeyemi, 2023). Other scholars (e.g., Xu, 2023) argue that difficulties in managing copyrights due to the fragmentation of rights embedded in musical copyright—give individuals exclusive rights to their works.

Most PROs around the world have functioned as de facto monopolies. However, exceptions to this monopoly norm exist, notably in jurisdictions like the United States, which has maintained multiple societies for nearly a century (Wallis et al., 1999; Rogers and Sparviero, in this special issue). The growing scrutiny of PROs’ monopolistic position suggests that conventional understanding of their role may need to be reconsidered as these organizations adapt to an evolving environment. Some scholars argue that PROs go beyond the “collective exercise of rights in the strict sense” when they engage in “socio-economic cultural functions” (Oriakhogba, 2018: 15). Fiscor (2006) notes that not much is known about the changing role of PROs, particularly in relation to the copyright protection aspect. Torremans (2006) asserts that PROs are also given the “the right to enforce rights against infringers” (Torremans, 2006: 227), signaling their expanded mandates.

Challenges in copyright enforcement by PROs in the digital age

Scholarship examining challenges confronted by collecting societies in the digital age is limited (see, for example, Adetunji and Okuonghae, 2022; Fiscor, 2006; Gervais, 2006). The literature highlights several key challenges, including the ease of reproducing copyrighted materials; widespread sharing and distribution of content; the prevalence of compact storage devices; and the difficulty of identifying copyright infringers due to the near-identical nature of original and duplicated content (Adetunji and Okuonghae, 2022). Elsewhere, scholars argue that current copyright frameworks are insufficient for addressing emerging challenges (e.g., Xu, 2023), emphasizing that CMOs must “update their mandate in order to catch up with the changes of international transition and dissemination of musical works” (Xu, 2023: 8).

In the African context, the role of PROs in protecting musical copyright has been relegated to the backburner as PROs seem to be tied with their traditional roles. The available snippets of literature however acknowledge that PROs can play a pivotal role in copyright enforcement (Arezzo, 2015; Oriakhogba, 2018; Ouma, 2006). PROs are thus empowered to institute legal proceedings against copyright infringers, but they normally avoid the litigation option and opt for non-forceful methods such as negotiation and arbitration (Ouma, 2006). This is because the costs of litigation are high, and it takes very long to determine the cases. Moreover, PROs cannot provide proof for the infringement such as the case of live performances. Most of them rely on returns submitted by users although in some cases the users may refuse to hand over the evidence to the PRO, in which case they would need the relevant court orders to compel the users to produce the evidence. In some instances, some users may argue that the mandate of the PRO is to collect and distribute royalties and enforcing copyright amounts to overstepping their mandate. This shows that the roles and functions of PROs are contested.

The evolutionary theory of organizations

This study draws upon key aspects of the evolutionary theory of organizations which advances explanations as to how organizations change in contemporary society. This theoretical perspective, which borrows concepts and metaphors from evolutionary biology as heuristic devices to explain development and change in organizations (Datta and Dey, 2006; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995), was formalized only in the1850s (Oyibo and Grabriel, 2020). It views organizations as living organisms which evolve over time. Thus, they have a life-cycle beginning with birth, adolescent growth, maturity and decline or death (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Change is imminent in the sense that as a developing entity, an organization has within it an “underlying form, logic, program or code that regulates the process of change and moves from a point of departure toward a subsequent end that is prefigured in the present state” (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995: 515). The imminent nature of change within organizations is crucial because the global environment in which organizations operate is turbulent, making it imperative for organizations to “evolve, learn and innovate to survive” (Datta and Dey, 2006: 87).

Similarly, Oyibo and Gabriel (2020) argue that due to the constant challenges they face, organizations need to adjust themselves and try to adapt regularly to meet the needs of the environment. The most crucial attribute of the evolutionary process is that it is gradual, “consistently evolving better adaptive features to survive in an unstable environment” (Datta and Dey, 2006: 88). In contemporary society, evolution is associated with Charles Darwinian's notion of “natural section” and “survival of the fittest” which is considered the driving force behind the evolutionary process (Datta and Dey, 2006: 89). While the evolutionary theory encompasses many facets, this study borrows only a few insights from the theory to illuminate on how PROs adapt and adopt ways of survival in the ever-evolving musical industry ecology. Gervais (2006: 17) rightly asserts that although licensing and royalty collection are still important for PROs, they are not the only roles because they have “evolved to oversee compliance, fight piracy and perform various social and cultural functions” as canvassed in this article.

Methodological discussion

In examining the role of the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (ZIMURA), the current study asks three questions, namely: (1) What role is played by ZIMURA in protecting the musical rights of its members? (2) How are ZIMURA's roles changing in the contemporary operating environment? (3) What challenges is ZIMURA confronted with in performing its operations?

To address these questions, a qualitative case study approach was adopted. Following Baxter and Jack's (2008: 554) view that “the hallmark of a case study is the multiple data sources,” data were collected through in-depth interviews with eight purposively selected key informants. This was supplemented by an analysis of archival records from ZIMURA's website and online newspaper articles. Interviews took place in Harare, Zimbabwe, between 2 September and 19 September 2024, lasting between 30 and 90 min. Participants were chosen based on their ability to provide “thick” data, with selection criteria favoring individuals currently or previously affiliated with ZIMURA in various capacities. Access to participants was facilitated through referrals, making the sampling strategy quasi-snowball (Berg, 2001). Each participant was required to have substantial knowledge of ZIMURA's operations and processes. The textual data from in-depth interviews, document analysis and archival textual material gleaned from ZIMURA's website were transcribed, thematically coded, and analyzed through the deductive approach to extrapolate emerging themes and identify textual excerpts for use in the discussion section. These themes are discussed in the next section.

This study focused on ZIMURA, which represents an intriguing case of a “hybrid” or “gray” Performing Rights Organization (PRO) in Southern Africa. Unlike most PROs that can be clearly classified as either public or private entities, ZIMURA defies such simple categorization (Mead and Warren, 2016: 291). What makes ZIMURA particularly noteworthy is its operation within Zimbabwe's exceptionally challenging environment, characterized by an ongoing, multi-faceted crisis that has severely impacted the financial stability of the country's musicians (Chari, 2016; Nyathi and Maguraushe, 2023a).

Continuity and change: shifting roles of ZIMURA

A key finding here is that while ZIMURA is still positioned within the traditional realm of collecting societies, its responsibilities encompass non-traditional functions such as mediating copyright infringement disputes, initiating legal reforms, championing social welfare programs and educational programs for its 4500-plus membership.² These organizational changes were shaped by both domestic and international influences. A prominent finding from the interviews was ZIMURA's essential role as an intermediary in the music industry. Interviewees consistently highlighted ZIMURA's dual mediating functions—both traditional and emerging. While ZIMURA maintains its conventional role, reflected in its mission statement of “administering Music Copyright through effective and efficient collection and distribution of royalties” (Zimbabwe Music Rights Association, n.d.), it has also evolved to serve as a mediator in copyright infringement disputes. This expanded intermediary function represents a “new” dimension of ZIMURA's responsibilities, a view to which most participants also subscribed to. Henry Makombe, ZIMURA's Deputy Director, explained that the organization's fundamental purpose is to serve as a connection between musical content creators and those who use their music:

[W]e collect royalties from the users and we give them a license. They expire after a certain period; it could be six months, it could be annually, and after we have done the collection, then we deduct a certain percentage, which has a cap of 30%…. (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024)

This sentiment was echoed by gospel musician, Pastor Charles Charamba who believes that there is a misconception on what ZIMURA does, adding that ZIMURA's job is “to collect royalties.” He advanced that “there seems to be an exaggeration or exaggerations in terms of what is expected of ZIMURA…” before admitting that definitions regarding what ZIMURA does “are kind of evolving”

But originally, the bracket in which ZIMURA falls, it is just a collecting body, yes, we know it is evolving by itself. But going into yesteryear's function, it is very much separate from record labels and recording companies which were responsible for managing mechanical rights. These were the main custodians of copyright. (Charles Charamba, Interview, 9 September 2024)

Both Makombe and Charamba emphasize the centrality of ZIMURA's intermediary role as a collector, a perspective which resonates with extant literature where collecting societies are de-facto monopolies that act on behalf of copyright holders (Haunss, 2013; Wallis et al., 1999; Xu, 2023). The changing technological landscape has significantly transformed ZIMURA's role in the music industry. Charamba's reference to “yesteryear” and acknowledgment of “revolving” responsibilities highlight how the organization has adapted to new circumstances. Notably, as new technologies have diminished record companies’ traditional gatekeeping power, ZIMURA has expanded its scope. This evolution is exemplified by ZIMURA's move into mechanical rights protection, an area that was once exclusively controlled by Zimbabwe's recording companies. Charamba illustrates this evolution thus:

ZIMURA manages performance rights. But of late it has been trying also to get into mechanical rights. Because the industry set up that I alluded to earlier, is now broken down. The set up where we have a recording company, a studio, what, what, it's no longer standing as it were… It has changed because of the coming in of technology. Why? Because what you were supposed to do as a musician in the past was that you had your talent from the village or from the township, but you did not have anywhere to record, so you had to look for a recording studio. It was a rare resource. These days, ownership of a computer, ownership of a phone, any computersied gadget is almost equal to owning a studio. So, the proliferation, in terms of ownership of gadgets that are capable of capturing a musical piece, now in almost every street, every other house, there are unlimited possibilities. So, this took away the role of recording companies. (Charles Charamba, 9 September 2023)

With recording companies in decline and threats of copyright infringements expected to rise in the new digital environment, PROs are expected to venture into new territories to maximize the financial benefits of their members.

Apart from the traditional intermediary role of ZIMURA, participants also acknowledged the emerging dispute resolution arbitration role of ZIMURA. Clive “Mono” Mukundu, a session musician, music producer and musicologist explained how ZIMURA had “demonstrated great effectiveness by successfully resolving numerous cases through the organization of meetings where parties involved reach agreements on specific terms without the courts.” The sentiment was echoed by James,³ a high-ranking ZIMURA official who, despite emphasizing the traditional facilitator role of ZIMURA, conceded that ZIMURA had mediated in numerous copyright infringement disputes between its members. However, ZIMURA's dispute resolution function appears to be ad hoc, as the organization only mediates when invited to do so (Henry Makombe, interview, 2 September 2024). Music producer, “Levels” (real name, Tafadzwa Kadzima) argues that “the real, real, job of ZIMURA is to collect royalties on behalf of its members.” He contends that while ZIMURA is “trying its best” to protect the musical copyrights of its members they lack the capacity to monitor and detect copyright infringements [Tafadwa Kadzima, Interview, 19 September 2024].

In its effort to protect intellectual property, ZIMURA actively monitors copyright violations while encouraging its members to maintain professional standards and exercise care in their creative work (The Standard, 3 November 2024). To maintain its effectiveness, ZIMURA must strike a balance between embracing new responsibilities and preserving its traditional functions. This approach aligns with Oyibo and Gabriel’s (2020) observation that organizations must adapt to meet ongoing challenges. For Gervais (2006: 17) the “ability of collectives to meet the needs of both authors and users is dependent on the evolution of both their internal practices and the framework in which CMOs work…”

Apart from mediating in copyright infringement disputes ZIMURA also engages in litigation against violators of intellectual property rights. James believes that Zimbabwe is one of those countries where there is little appreciation and respect for copyrights. As a result, there are “some pockets of resistance” where some institutions and individuals believe that they should not pay for playing music. James explained how in 2016 ZIMURA took the national broadcaster, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) to court twice for resisting to pay royalties. ZBC paid ZIMURA USD600 000 after losing the case on appeal at the supreme court – a case which set “an example” for the rest of music users in the country. (James, Interview, 13 September 2024).

James believes that ignorance about intellectual property rights issues is rampant in Zimbabwe. He gave an example of how DJs at ZBC were refusing to pay music of some artists arguing that they were promoting the musicians by playing their music. While litigation can help set an example to would be infringers, it does not normally yield the desired results due to the prolonged adjudication processes. As indicated by James, although ZIMURA won the case, ZBC delayed paying until the money had lost value due to currency volatility. This recalls Ouma's (2006) observation that collecting societies try to avoid using litigation to enforce copyrights because of high costs and the length of time it takes to adjudicate such cases. Hence, collecting societies prefer negotiations and arbitration as opposed to litigation (Ouma, 2006:615).

Advocacy and legal reform

ZIMURA also engages in various forms of advocacy and initiates legal reforms to ensure that any loopholes in the copyright law are plugged. When ZIMURA seeks to modify licensing fee structures, they must submit a formal request to their oversight body, the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. This request typically involves proposing amendments to outdated sections of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (26.05). Explains Makombe:

So, they sometimes engage us when they sometimes want to do the reviews and then we do some workshops, they get our thoughts around that and then they enquired and do the amendments (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024)

To date, ZIMURA has submitted recommendations to review sections 2 (interpretation), 51 (infringement), and 59 (penalties) of the Act. An example of such a problematic term which was not defined in the Act is “public place” and ZIMURA provided a definition. Makombe explained how they used to “borrow” the definition of “public place” from the Criminal Codification Act” and yet the meaning that applies under the codification Act may not be the same as that which applied to the Copyright Act.

So, we faced some challenges, lawyers were taking advantage of certain sections under those sections in the Copyright Act, and they will cause the case to delay (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024)

Given the ever-evolving technological landscape, it could be argued that legal reform will become a key function rather than an incidental function of ZIMURA, and legal expertise will probably become an important consideration in employment matters.

Intellectual property education

ZIMURA believes that most of the copyright infringements are a result of ignorance. As a result, it has rolled out educational programs for its members, the public and stakeholders to mitigate the challenge.

Head of Documentation and Distribution at ZIMURA, Roselyn Chirume explained how ZIMURA sought to equip its members with knowledge about copyrights. Among other things, musicians are taught how to craft a “Take Down Order” for platform companies, how to upload their music online, and how to market oneself via social media platforms (Roselyn Chirume, Interview, 28 August 2024). Recent copyright infringement cases highlight the growing need for ZIMURA to expand its educational outreach regarding copyright protection. Notable examples include the violation of Pastor Charamba's intellectual property rights by Jah Signal, and the dispute between the gospel group Joyful Parises Choir and the Kwekwe-based Zig Zag Band, which led to the removal of Joyful Parises Choir's song from YouTube (The Standard, 27 October 2024).

Social cultural roles

ZIMURA has implemented several welfare programs to support its members. Through a partnership with a major insurance company, the organization provides funeral coverage to ensure dignified burials for its members (Rosely Chirume, Interview, 28 August 2024). The organization also offers financial support through retirement gratuities and provides an incapacitation allowance of USD500 or its equivalent to members who are unable to perform live due to accidents (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024). These benefits are particularly important given the volatile nature of musical careers, where artists often experience a stark contrast between temporary fame and eventual hardship. As scholars have noted, many musicians shift from being “celebrities” (Chari, 2013: 3) to becoming “vagabond social failures who are in the glitz today but eventually suffer and die paupers” (Mhiripiri, 2010: 219). Nyathi and Maguraushe (2023a: 650) found that some popular musicians in Zimbabwe did not have medical insurance because they reasoned that “a person does not fall sick every day.” One of their participants told them that “A musician dies on stage. A musician generally does not retire” while another retorted that “Health insurance does not work for us musicians in Zimbabwe. Only cars are insured” (Nyathi and Maguraushe, 2023a: 650).

Challenges faced by ZIMURA

ZIMURA faces different challenges in its operations. These could be described as economic, social, legal and technological.

Economic challenges

ZIMURA operates in the harshest economic conditions owing to Zimbabwe's prolonged economic crisis. As a result, some companies that use music may decide not to renew their licenses because music is “considered a luxury” and not a necessity of life such as food, shelter and clothing (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024). Because of the poor performance of the economy some “organisations were shutting down” while others found a good reason to remove music from their business.

…a boutique can do their music without music. So, they can, if anything, if they see that there is anything attracting an extra fee when you are trying to contain costs, business people, they try to do away with things of pleasure, which is music, there it's included. (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024)

This shows how the austere economic conditions in Zimbabwe undermine ZIMURA's efforts to broaden its revenue base, thereby maximizing the financial benefits of its members.

Apart from reduced revenue, ZIMURA has been experiencing difficulties in remitting royalties to foreign right holders due to the volatile local currency which has been replaced three times since 2003. James sheds light on the currency induced predicament for ZIMURA thus:

When we pay royalties for use of music by … music from outside, say the United States, Europe and so forth and so forth, we need to pay using US dollars and our currency has been changing and most of it wouldn’t be used in any other country other than Zimbabwe. And then when you go to the Reserve Bank to say loo, we want to pay some royalties they don’t think that's a priority. So that has been our challenge. (James, interview, 13 September 2024)

So, the economic crisis in Zimbabwe, undermines ZIMURA's capacity to honor its reciprocal obligations of collecting and remitting revenue on behalf of foreign right holders. By failing to perform its international obligations the core principles of solidarity and reciprocity (Wallis et al., 1999) are undermined by the coalescence of global and local forces.

Social challenges

Apart from economic factors, ZIMURA is hamstrung by some music users who resist paying their dues. Some of the users refuse to pay because they believe that they are “promoting the artists” (James, Interview, 2 September 2024). Such resistance could also be attributable to social perceptions, ignorance and weak legal regimes, among others (Ouma, 2006). The perception that music is not something that should be paid for rings true for Zimbabwe as for many other Sub-Saharan Africa. Ouma (2006: 602) notes that music in Africa is perceived as communal property hence people do not want to pay. Apart from these negative social perceptions about copyright law, there is widespread ignorance on intellectual property issues. Pastor Charles Charamba believes that most infringements are committed by “young musicians who get excited by our music” and because they put fame ahead of everything else, they do not take their time to learn about intellectual property issues (Charamba, Interview, 9 September 2024). According to Charamba:

Society is complicit, but it is doing so out of ignorance. Our people, we have people who do not like to steal other people's property, but are forced to do so because they do not have the knowledge. (Charles Charamba, Interview, Charles Charamba, 9 September 2023)

ZIMURA's approach to intellectual property education appears to be driven by widespread lack of understanding about copyright law within the music industry. As ZIMURA director Polisile Ncube-Chimhini noted, many local artists’ limited knowledge of copyright law has made them vulnerable to exploitation by music publishers (The Zimbabwe Daily, 8 May 2019). This knowledge gap is further illustrated by producer Tafadzwa Kadzima (“Levels”), who revealed that even popular artist “Saintfloew” (Tawanda Mabo) had not registered with ZIMURA despite his success.

Legal obstacles

ZIMURA faces a myriad of legal obstacles linked to some loopholes in the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (Chapter 26:05). Participants raised several concerns regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Act. Makombe argued that the judiciary “were not well versed in the copyright Act” (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024). He explained how cases were delayed due to the non-existence of specialized courts.

In other countries, in other territories, there are specialised courts that handle cases, and there today, you are in court 5, and then you go tomorrow you are … the judge, I mean the magistrate and the PP (Public Prosectutor) has changed, you are now going to have to be asked to report to court number 11, and the case its not, the case is deferred and then you go to court number 10 or 7. It goes round and round and, you … justice is not served at the end of the day. (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024)

Such assertions demonstrate how slow the wheels of justice are in Zimbabwe pertaining to matters of copyright. Makombe's view was reinforced by ZIMURA director, Polisile Ncube Chimhini who blamed the “interpretation and implementation of the law” for posing a major challenge for ZIMURA (The Zimbabwe Daily, 8 May 2024). Pastor Charles Charamba agrees with Ncube-Chimhini:

The law cannot be a problem because the law says lock the gate at 6 O’ Clock. So, if we do not close the gate at 6 O’ Clock, it is not the law which has a problem. It is us who are supposed to close the gate at 6 O’ clock. (Charles Charamba, Interview, 9 September 2024)

Henry Makombe explains concurs:

At law, you have got to be specific. If you say, if you are caught with a single pirated copy of a musical work, when you talk about a copy of a musical work, we talk about a single work. It is not defined. A work can be a compilation, it can be an album. It can be a CD. So, it brings certain weaknesses in the area where a lawyer on the side of infringing copyright can smile all the way and say… For example, you have got a single disc, an MP3 – an MP3 can have more than hundreds of thousands of works… So, you can’t say that a person has committed a single crime. It's like someone who comes to your village and steals from family 1, family 2, family 3, up to family 10. And they have got a total of 50 cows and then charge them with one count. So that's the challenge that we are still facing. (Henry Makombe, Interview, 2 September 2024)

The above statement demonstrates how the law becomes an obstacle rather than an enabler of justice. Terms like “public place” were not precisely defined resulting in ZIMURA licensing inspectors failing to access certain places. Some business entities refused to pay using “private property” inscriptions on their premises as an alibi to deny ZIMURA license inspectors permission to enter their premises arguing that they were not “public places.” This shows how sometimes the issue is not about “optimally” enforcing the law (Ouma, 2006) but having a law which is fit for purpose.

Technological challenges

ZIMURA is grappling with a plethora of conundrums linked to the affordances of digital media (Adetunji and Okuonghae, 2022). ZIMURA's reliance on log sheets provided by broadcasters presents a significant challenge, as there is no guarantee that the information they supply is accurate. According to Tafadwa Kadzima (“Levels”), some radio DJs play music directly from their laptops rather than using the official system. Additionally, they frequently alter their playlists at any time, making it difficult for ZIMURA to track the exact number of songs aired on the radio. Kadzima explains:

…they (ZIMURA) can’t really tell who has been played because they don’t have machines that can record on their own. Radio is the customer for ZIMURA, so you can’t ask a customer (if you are selling tomatoes), that my friend how many tomatoes did you take? They can tell you that they took 5 when they took 6. Because they (DJs) are just doing those things alone they log on their own. ZIMURA is not there. (Tafadzwa Kadzima, Interview, 19 September 2024)

Kadzima's point is supported by Mono Mukundu who opined that the “primary obstacle” for ZIMURA were “government owned radio stations that were unwilling to fulfil their financial obligations.” Like Kadzima, Mukundu reckons that ZIMURA “lacks state of the art technology to effectively monitor the airplay of their members’ music, unlike other countries” because they “relied heavily on log sheets distributed by log radio DJs.” Similarly, Charles Charamba avers that ZIMURA should embrace new technology as much as it should because “everything is going in the direction of accountability which is instantaneous” [Charles Charamba, Interview, Charles Charamba, 9 September 2023).

Kadzima, Mukundu's and Charamba's views converge around the idea that ZIMURA is not effective in collecting royalties as it relies on unreliable data. To remain relevant ZIMURA must embrace the appropriate technology so that it maximizes the financial benefits of its members, the majority of whom live in impoverished conditions (Mhiripiri, 2010; Nyathi and Maguraushe, 2023a).

Concluding remarks

This article examined the role of ZIMURA in safeguarding musical copyright. It examines ZIMURA's experiences in copyright protection, the ways in which the organization is evolving, and the challenges it encounters in this domain. The findings suggest that while ZIMURA primarily operates as a traditional “intermediary,” it is also gradually transforming into a more dynamic collecting society (Gervais, 2006), expanding its responsibilities beyond its conventional role.

To navigate a rapidly changing environment and maximize financial benefits for its members, ZIMURA has adopted additional functions beyond copyright collection, including social welfare initiatives, educational programs, and mediation in copyright infringement disputes. The article argues that the socio-economic, legal, and technological challenges faced by ZIMURA illustrate the volatility of its operating environment, compelling the organization to adapt and evolve (Datta and Day, 2006).

Notwithstanding that this is a single case study, which restricts comparative analysis and generalizability, the study nevertheless offers valuable insights into copyright management within the Global South, particularly in the Southern African context. Future research could incorporate multiple case studies from within the region or across different regions to provide a more comprehensive understanding of musical copyright protection in the context of the digital revolution .

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tendai Chari

Notes

References

Adetunji

Okuonghae

(2022) Challenges of copyright protection in the digital age: The Nigerian perspective. Library Philosophy and Practice: 7159. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.ul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13905&context=libphilprac. (accessed 11 March 2025).

Andersen

James

Kozul-Wright

(2000) Copyrights and Competition: Towards Policy Implications for Music Business Development. Manchester: Centre for Research and Innovation, The University of Manchester.

Arezzo

(2015) Competition and intellectual property protection in the market for the provision of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works - lights and shadows of the new European directive 2014/26/EU. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 46: 534–556.

Baxter

Jack

(2008) Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Quantitative Report 13(4): 544–559.

Berg

(2001) Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Chari

(2013) Between globalisation and localisation: Contradictory impacts of seventy five percent local content on the music industry in Zimbabwe. Muziki 10(1): 25–41.

Chari

(2016) Fame without fortune: Discursive constructions of bling in urban grooves music. Muziki: Journal of Music Research in Africa 13(1): 19–31.

Datta

Dey

(2006) Evolutionary approaches to organisational strategy: Addressing business dynamism. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research 1(1): 87–94.

Fiscor

(2006) Collective management of copyright and related rights in the digital, networked environment: Voluntary, presumption—based, extended, mandatory, possible, inevitable. In: Gervais

(ed) Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights. Alphen aan den Rijin: Kluwer Law International, pp. 37–81.

10.

Forere

(2017) Protecting music copyright owners in Southern Africa: Need for regulatory convergence. SECO Working Paper no. 6/2017. Bern, Switzerland: SECO, World Trade Institute, University of Bern. Retrieved from working_paper_no_06_2017_forere.pdf. (accessed 11 March 2025).

11.

Gervais

(2006) The changing role of copyright collectives. In: Gervais

(ed) Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights. Alphen aan den Rijin: Kluwer Law International, pp. 3–35.

12.

Haunss

(2013) The changing role of collecting societies in the internet. Internet Policy Review. Available at: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/changing-role-collecting-societies-internet (accessed 15 September 2024).

13.

Hellenic Foundation for European Foreign Policy (2009) Collecting Societies and Cultural Diversity in the Music Sector. Brussels: European Parliament.

14.

Martinez

(2024) Performance rights organizations explained: ASCAP, BMI and More (2024). Available at: https://flourishprosper.net/music-resources/performance-rights-organizations-explained-ascap-bmi-and-more-2024/ (accessed 13 December 2024).

15.

Mead

Warren

(2016) Quasi-governmental organizations at the local level: Publicly appointed directors leading non-profit organizations. Nonprofit Policy Forum 7(3): 289–309.

16.

Mhiripiri

(2010) The production of stardom and survival dynamics in the post 2000 crisis period. Journal of African Media Studies 2(2): 209–223.

17.

Nyathi

Maguraushe

(2023a) “Wanondishuwira hupenyu hunokunda hwavo”. The financial plight of Zimbabwean popular musicians. Mankind Quarterly 63(4): 636–655.

18.

Nyathi

Maguraushe

(2023b) The implementation of intellectual copyrights to enhance music business in Zimbabwe: Challenges and prospects. African Musicology Online 12(1): 11–26.

19.

Ola

(2013) Copyright collective administration in Nigeria: Lessons for Africa. Heidelberg: Springer.

20.

Oriakhogba

(2018) Strengthening the regulatory regimes for collective societies in South Africa and Nigeria: Any room for competition law? Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Commercial Law, University of Cape Town.

21.

Oron

(2019) Collective management of rights in a transforming market. Speech read at the ALAI Congress. Prague, 19 September. htts://www.cisoc.org (accessed 15 December 2024).

22.

Ouma

(2006) Optimal engagement of music copyright in Sub-Saharan Africa: Reality or myth?. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 9(6): 592–627.

23.

Oyibo

Gabriel

(2020) Evolution of organisations theory: A snapshot. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development 3(6): 46–56.

24.

The Standard (27 October 2024) Joyful praise choir in copyright infringement storm. Available at: https://www.newsday.co.zw/thestandard/standard-style/article/200034124/joyful-praise-choir-in-copyright-infringement-storm (accessed 18 November 2024).

25.

The Standard (3 November 2024) ZIMURA shares thoughts on copyright violation. Available at: https://www.newsday.co.zw/thestandard/standard-style/article/200034437/zimura-shares-thoughts-on-copyright-violation (accessed 16 December 2024).

26.

The Zimbabwe Daily (8 May 2019) Artistes ignorant of copyright issues. Available at: https://thezimbabwedaily.com/news/333838-artistes-ignorant-of-copyright-issues.html (accessed 14 December 2024).

27.

Torremans

PLC

(2006) Collective management in the United Kingdom (and Ireland). In: Gervais

(ed) Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights. Alphen aan den Rijin: Kluwer Law International, pp. 227–257.

28.

Ubani

Adeyeni

(2023) Collective administration of copyright in Nigeria. Administration of Copyright 2: 1–20.

29.

Van de Ven

Poole

(1995) Explaining development and change in Organisations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510–540.

30.

Wagenaar

Marx

(2012) Needletime: The long and winding road. Obiter 33(2): 297–319.

31.

Wallis

Baden-Fuller

Kretschmer

, et al. (1999) Contested collective administration of intellectual property rights in music: The challenges to the principles of reciprocity and solidarity. European Journal of Communication 14(1): 5–35.

32.

(2023) Collective Management of Music Copyright: A Comparative Analysis of China, the United States, and Australia. London: Routledge.

33.

Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (n.d.) About v.3. Available at: https://zimura.co.zw/about-v-3/. (accessed 15 May 2024).

Performance rights organizations and copyright protection in Southern Africa: The Zimbabwe case