By Frikkie Jonker, director of broadcast cybersecurity and anti-piracy at Irdeto, a partner of Multichoice Africa.

Content piracy is acknowledged as having enormously negative social impacts. It is a type of global organised crime that undermines the creative sector. However, what is not often discussed is what drives content piracy. What leads people to steal content?

Frikkie Jonker

Unfortunately, the African continent is something of a global dumping ground for inferior products. This is practised in the area of legitimate trade, but also in the criminal underworld. Outdated regulations, inefficient law enforcement, bribery and corruption all play a role in this.

Despite this, African authorities are doing a heroic job fighting cybercrime and content piracy. There have been huge successes in the prosecution of content piracy operations.

Criminal risk assessments

To understand why Africa becomes a target for piracy, it is useful to look at things from the perspective of a global criminal syndicate. They will often follow the path of least resistance – and for better or worse, Africa is attractive territory.

When it comes to content piracy, Africa has low barriers to entry, and an almost limitless demand for cheap content.

In terms of penetration success – circumventing cybersecurity measures – they may achieve a success rate of 70%, which compares favourably with other territories. This – coupled with Africa’s billion-strong population – is a key supply driver of content piracy.

From the demand side, a potential user of content piracy will do a similar assessment. There would be the risk of possible prosecution. Of being named and shamed. A risk of downloading viruses and malware onto their devices… However, despite all of this, they may choose to take that risk.

There may be a sense that content piracy is a relatively minor crime, compared to crimes such as murder, rape and grand corruption. In reality, though, content piracy is not a minor crime.

Changing attitudes

Unfortunately, where there are few consequences, the barriers to using stolen content are so much lower.

Changing people’s attitude to the crime of content piracy has to be an industry-wide campaign. The creative industry must unite and address the issue collectively – as they have done through pan-African initiatives like Partners Against Piracy.

Government attitudes, too, are critically important. Where a government sees content piracy as an insignificant issue, they are allowing the sabotage of their own country’s creative and entertainment sector.

But there are further impacts. When leading content businesses consider entering the African market, they need the reassurance that their content rights will be protected. Where a country is unable to provide such guarantees, the investments do not materialise.

Hi-tech enforcement

Fortunately, thanks to recent advances in AI, automation, watermarking and digital tracing capabilities, it is now possible to track down and prosecute consumers of pirated content rapidly, accurately and at scale.

In the UK, for example, police recently arrested as many as 2 000 people who were illegally viewing streams of English Premier League football matches. Similar cases are being pursued in Africa.

Piracy is often a multi-level operation, with global and regional headquarters, as well as regional resellers. It is now also possible for content owners and police to identify criminals at every level of these operations, as well as those who consume pirated content.

Economic impacts

Many people believe they simply cannot afford to pay for content. Entertainment often takes a back seat behind the need to put food on the table.

To some extent, premium content is a luxury, so one can understand this perception. However, pricing innovation by content platforms has led to entertainment packages at almost every price point. Financial difficulty is no longer an excuse for content piracy.

Prosecuting content piracy is not simply a harsh clampdown that spoils everyone’s fun. The war on content piracy has very real benefits – for everyone.

It protects the livelihoods of creators, producers and rightsholders, ensuring that there can be more content in the future.

A content sector such as pay-TV has extremely tight margins. Up to 80% of revenue generated goes into producing and securing content. Given these margins, any content theft threatens the viability of the entire industry.

Major productions across Africa – in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and many other countries – sustain thousands of jobs – in production, performance, set and costume design, all the way through to catering, transport and accommodation. The war on piracy is a war to protect these jobs.

In the case of sports events, it is largely the legitimate allocation of broadcast rights that ensures modern professional sport can exist in the first place.

Another benefit of stopping piracy is that it preserves the support ecosystem that maintains trust in content platforms and their ongoing viability. In the legal economy, people invest in people – in their entertainment, their livelihoods and their peace of mind. Enriching their lives. By subscribing to legal content, legal users support this ecosystem.

The reasons for content piracy are complex. But the benefits of a creative economy free of piracy are plain to see. Content entertains, it nurtures, it captures society’s imagination. It helps build local culture. Hence the battle against piracy: to preserve and grow this remarkable industry.

African Public Relations Association (APRA) hereby expresses unequivocal solidarity with the government and people of Nigeria as the protest embarked upon in response to the rising costs of living entering its second day. We call for sincere and continuous dialogue to ensure speedy resolutions of the issues that led to the protests.

Protests and advocacies for improved social conditions are constitutive of civil liberties and central to democratic practice. Indeed, democracy dies without a guarantee of civil liberties.

APRA, therefore, commends the Nigerian government for its expressed guarantee and non-aversion to the expression of the right to protests by citizens and the actions it has taken to prevent the escalation of the crisis.

However, APRA noted with concerns the reported death of persons – including citizens and security forces, injuries to many persons, looting of business assets, theft of equipment and other resources in public utilities – including telecommunication infrastructure, food processing companies as well as instances of destruction and arson that have resulted from the first day of protests.

APRA’s commitment to seeing Africa prosper requires that we condemn the unjustifiable death of citizens and security personnel as well as looting and vandalism of infrastructure emplaced to improve the quality of life of the people.

Therefore, we call on all actors – state and non-state – to stop the hostilities and the outrage. In their stead, APRA advocates continuous dialogue and sincere conversations to ensure quick and concrete resolutions of the issues.

We call on the government of Nigeria, including subnational entities, to work with all stakeholders and restore normalcy to the nation. Nigeria is central to Africa’s vision for the progress and development of the continent.

APRA shares in the grief of families that have lost their members in the ongoing crisis and pray for the repose of the souls of the departed.

We wish those recuperating from injuries a speedy and complete recovery and hope that institutions and persons that have lost properties will be supported to recover quickly and return to business to support government’s effort to reflate the Nigerian economy.

The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) has struck out a subscription price hike case instituted against MultiChoice Nigeria.

A three-member tribunal struck out the suit following a request by Festus Onifade, the claimant, to withdraw his case against MultiChoice.

Onifade who made an oral application for the withdrawal said he no longer intends to proceed with the matter.

He also expressed the view that MultiChoice would leverage the period of the court’s annual vacation to argue its appeal at the Court of Appeal and frustrate his case.

“I am abandoning this matter. I am withdrawing this case,” he said while explaining that he had filed the suit to challenge the alleged oppressive attitude of multinationals toward Nigerian consumers.

Moyosore Onigbanjo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, counsel to MultiChoice, stated that he had no objection to the claimant’s request to withdraw.

Counsel for the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) also had no objections.

The tribunal granted Onifade’s Request.

“The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded,” the tribunal ruled.

On April 29, the tribunal stopped MultiChoice from increasing its tariffs, and subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice filed by Onifade.

A three-member tribunal had ruled in favour of Onifade by temporarily restraining MultiChoice from implementing the impending price increase scheduled to take effect on May 1, 2024,

But MultiChoice had appealed the decision and filed for a stay of proceedings.

Onigbanjo said MultiChoice had filed a preliminary objection urging the court to decline jurisdiction over the suit filed by Festus Onifade and to strike it out, arguing that a similar price dispute case had previously been decided in favour of his client.

Onifade argued that the issue before the court was whether MultiChoice Nigeria provided adequate notice regarding the May 1, 2024, TV subscription price increase, not about price regulation or increase.

In its ruling, the three-member panel chaired by Thomas Okosu dismissed MultiChoice’s preliminary objection for disobeying its interim orders and subsequently imposed a 150 million naira administrative penalty on MultiChoice, along with a one-month subscription order against the Pay TV provider.

MultiChoice has subsequently filed an appeal against the ruling, arguing that the tribunal erred in its decision.

The company also filed counter-affidavits dated July 12, 2024, providing reasons for its price hike and requesting that the tribunal dismiss the case.

In its affidavits, deposed to by Damilola Olatunji, MultiChoice explained that to mitigate the impact of the weakening exchange rate in Nigeria, it was constrained to increase its subscription prices, though it did so to the least affordable extent possible.

The company insisted that it duly notified its customers and regulatory authorities before the increment was effected.

It was stated that the defendant had already filed a notice of appeal dated June 7, 2024, and an application for a stay of execution of the tribunal’s orders made on June 7, 2024, along with a request for all further proceedings before the tribunal to be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.

Onifade urged the court to determine his case in the interest of justice.

At the resumed hearing on Monday, Onigbanjo asked the tribunal to adjourn the matter until the Court of Appeal decided on his applications.

He explained that the law dictates that when a tribunal is aware that an application is before the Court of Appeal, it must allow the Court of Appeal to decide.

On his part, Onifade said the issue of indefinite adjournment had been decided by the tribunal and could not be reopened by MultiChoice.

He said the stay of proceedings in his case must first be filed in the court where the decision was granted.

“It is only upon the refusal of that stay that the applicant can approach a higher court,” Onifade added.

“Even where an applicant approaches a higher court, that higher court must make a positive pronouncement before the proceedings of a lower court can be stayed.”

I.O. Alaba, counsel to the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), asked the tribunal to exercise its wisdom and discretion based on the arguments of both parties.

Ruling on the applications, Okosu said while MultiChoice has the right to appeal, “proper procedures must be followed by MultiChoice”.

He said MultiChoice’s legal team had not shown the special circumstances that restrained it from seeking the tribunal’s leave to suspend its proceedings.

“Whereas we agree that MultiChoice has the right to appeal on a matter before this tribunal, the proper procedures must be followed,” Okosu said.

“We have reviewed the positions of Order 6, Rule 4 of the court of appeal rules, and did not see or find any circumstances that prevented MultiChoice from filing a stay of proceedings and execution before this tribunal.

“In the circumstances, this tribunal has nothing to stay and will therefore proceed to hear and determine this matter.”

Okosu subsequently moved to adjourn the matter till November after the court’s vacation.

He said he could not disobey the tribunal’s own rule on vacation.

It was at this point that Onifade stated that he no longer intended to proceed with the matter, insisting that MultiChoice would leverage the vacation to argue its appeal at the Court of Appeal and frustrate his case.

The tribunal subsequently struck it out.

“The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded,” the tribunal ruled.