Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 8


The Dáil went into Committee.
Question—"That Section 153 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Amendments 19 and 20, dealing with Section 154, fall with Amendment 18.

Question proposed—"That Section 154 stand part of the Bill."

On this section, I would like to call attention to paragraph (IV.) of sub-section (1). The whole section deals with the infringement of copyright, and paragraph (IV.) of sub-section (1) lays down that certain acts described in the sub-section shall not constitute an infringement of copyright. Paragraph (IV.) of that sub-section as it is at present gives leave for "the publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bona fide intended for the use of schools, and so described in the title and in any advertisements issued by the publisher, of short passages from published literary works, not themselves published for the use of schools in which copyright subsists. Provided that not more than two of such passages from works by the same author are published by the same publisher within five years, and that the source from which such passages are taken is acknowledged."

The suggestion has been made to me that that weighs very heavily upon publishing firms in this country. If you take the larger English firms, such as Longmans' and Macmillan's, they, having through their general business a considerable amount of copyright matter at their disposal, are enabled to publish excerpts from authors; but that power does not lie with the Irish publishers, who have a much smaller trade. It has been suggested that paragraph (IV.) of sub-section (1) should be amended so as to read: "the publication in a collection, of prose or poetry or both, mainly composed of non-copyright matter bonafide intended for the use of schools." This is another change: "... passages not exceeding one hundred lines from published literary works... in which copyright subsists." Here is a further change: "... that such passages shall not include passages taken from copyright works within five years from date of first publication, and not more than two of such passages from works by the same author are published from any one book."

If it is left in its present state, in books intended for educational purposes there is an allowance of two passages from works by an author within a five-year period. The amendment would allow you to have two passages of not more than one hundred lines each: that is, you can have two hundred lines from any author in any one book, the limitation of "within five years" going out, that being changed so that you may not take from any work within five years from the date from which copyright first ran. That is a definite change from the Act of 1911 and from the Commonwealth Union uniformity. It is within the Berne Convention. That proposition was made to me. It was made too late to allow me to have an amendment put down, or even to allow of sufficient examination; but the examination that has been given to it makes me very definitely disposed to accept it.

I did get an opportunity of consulting one or two Irish authors about it, and I found that their reaction was favourable in the main. They said: "Certainly the taking of passages from our works will not do any harm. It will not impair our copyright." One man went so far as to say that to a certain extent it was an advertisement. It is not regarded as impairing copyright. That author said that if the acceptance of such a change as this put the whole copyright matter outside the Commonwealth Union, although he thought it was good, he would then object to it.

I want to give notice that on the Report Stage I am going to set down this amendment as an amendment of my own, and am disposed to accept it. In the meantime, I will see if the authors generally can put up any definite case as to the benefits that are likely to be derived from being inside the Commonwealth Union in addition to being inside the Berne Convention. I give notice at the moment that that amendment will be tabled at the next Stage.

Will the Minister consider the point that one hundred lines of one book would be so much more than one hundred lines of another book?

We will have to consider that point.

Question—"That Section 154 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death:
Provided that at any time after the expiration of twenty-five years or, in the case of a work in which copyright subsisted on the 16th day of December, 1911, thirty years from the death of the author of a published work, copyright in the work shall not be deemed to be infringed by the reproduction of the work for sale if the person reproducing the work proves that he has given the appointed notice in writing of his intention to reproduce the work, and that he has paid in the appointed manner to, or for the benefit of, the owner of the copyright royalties in respect of all copies of the work sold by him calculated at the rate of ten per cent. on the price at which he publishes the work; and, for the purposes of this proviso, the Minister may make regulations appointing the mode in which notices are to be given, and the particulars to be given in such notices, and the mode, time, and frequency of the payment of royalties, including (if he thinks fit) regulations requiring payment in advance or otherwise securing the payment of royalties.

On behalf of Deputy O'Connell I move:—

"In line 29, to delete the word `fifty' and substitute therefor the word `thirty.' "

This proposition is to reduce the period. One purpose might be to ask for some justification for the period of fifty years. The proposition is that the period of copyright be limited to thirty years, that figure being fixed as being approximately the time which would allow the children of the author to come to manhood. It seems to be long enough unless there are very good reasons for the extension to fifty years.

No, the term of fifty years after the author's death is really one that is more or less of international agreement at the moment. Article 7 of the Berne Convention reads:—"The term of protection granted by the present Convention shall include the life of the author and fifty years after his death. Nevertheless, in case such term of protection should not be uniformly adopted by all the countries of the Union, the term shall be regulated by the law of the country where protection is claimed, and must not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, the contracting countries shall only be bound to apply the provisions of the preceding paragraph in so far as such provisions are consistent with their domestic laws."

That is just what the Convention aims at. The fifty years' period is the one that is common to most countries. There are exceptions to that. I was hoping to hear some arguments as to why thirty years should be put in instead of fifty. We can change fifty years to thirty years and still remain within the Berne Convention. The change to thirty years is again a definite step outside the Commonwealth Union.

There is quite a variety in the periods in the different countries. In the United States it is twenty-eight years from first publication, with an extension of a further term of twenty-eight years on application. Holland gives fifty years or the life of the author, whichever is the longer; Switzerland, the author's life and thirty years after, and Germany the same. I make the point that the monopoly rights of the writer ought to tend downwards rather than lengthen. Therefore, I suggest thirty years, as against fifty years in the Bill. If the Minister thinks there is strong reason in favour of keeping it fifty years I am not going to press the matter.

I cannot say I do. Let it remain for further consideration on Report, because, if there is a definite step out of the Commonwealth Union on sub-section 4 of Section 154, then we can consider this in a much clearer atmosphere. At the same time, if there is any substantial reason put forward on this point alone, apart from having what happens under Section 154—if there is any reason why thirty years is preferable to fifty years, then we can discuss it on its merits. There is variety with regard to the laws in the different countries. I think it is right to say that, though Deputy Johnson read two or three instances where the term was less than fifty years, still I think it is right to say that, on the whole, the life and fifty years thereafter would be the rule, and that the lesser period would be the exception. Some countries go as far as the life and eighty years after death.

There are some, of course, which go to the other side—a life of ten years after death—so that I have not any great feeling for it one way or the other. I cannot see any strong objection to making it a 30 years' period and neither can I see anything in favour of the 30 years. If we leave this suspended until we see what action is going to be taken on Section 154 we would have a better idea of what is going to happen by adopting the 30 year term.

I am quite agreeable to do that. When we say that property in a work might remain with the author for the period of his life and the life of his children until they become adults, that is a fair principle I think—that the youngest child will be an adult by the time the copyright expires. I think that is fairly clear evidence in favour of restricting it to 30 years.

Is it not a question of value? In other words, the asset that is created by the copyright if it is for a longer period is a more valuable and saleable asset than if it were for a shorter period. Is not that the real crux in the thing?

Undoubtedly. If you make it 100 years you are giving the author a present from the community for a longer period. On the question as to whether that present should be of an excessive value, I think that a certain principle might be invoked taking into account the public protection of the author's property for the period of his life and the life of his youngest child—that is until the youngest child is in a position to earn its own living as an adult.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.
Sections 155 and 156 put and agreed to.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that—
(a) ......
"(b) where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical."

I move amendment 22:

In sub-section (1) (b), line 5, page 59, after the words "in the course of" to insert the words "and in the discharge of the obligations resulting from."

This amendment is called for by the need for protecting the workman and avoiding certain difficulties that have arisen on the other side with respect to workmen's compensation. The term "in the course of his employment" has been open to a good deal of very wide interpretation and there has been a good deal of controversy as to what constituted the "course of employment." The proposal is to ensure that the knowledge gained, which has led to the creation of the value, has been in the "discharge of the obligations resulting from" the employment: that is to say that a man may get an idea entirely outside his employment and put it to use, but a controversy might arise or legal difficulties might arise if the employer said that the knowledge gained was in the course of employment. I think it is reasonable protection to ask. I think the intention is clear enough and this is merely to make assurance doubly sure.

I was just doubtful as to whether the words add anything. It is a question of the ownership of copyright and the statement is that the author of the work shall be the first owner of the copyright, provided that "where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service of apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person. ..." Deputy Johnson wants to make it, where the work was made "in the course of and in the discharge of the obligations resulting from." It is a very intricate legal point. Originally, in the Workmen's Compensation legislation the phrase was "in the course of employment" and there was added—in order to make the thing much more clear and distinct—"arising out of and in the course of." There has not been anything which has brought so much grist to the Bar mill as the insertion of that phrase, and I am afraid that the same thing would result here. It is only going to pile up difficulties and I doubt if there is very much going to be gained by adding those words, but I think it is going to add much from the point of view of legal practice. As regards adding anything by way of extra security for the person under apprenticeship, I have my doubts. I am not very anxious to have the amendment rejected because I think that the intention of the amendment is implied in the Bill.

Any interpretations which I have been able to read lead me to the same conclusion. I have not had it considered from the legal point of view, but if the Deputy would agree to hold over the amendment I could have it examined to see whether it is really adding anything extra.

That is the idea, merely to strengthen what I think is the intention of the Bill. The phrase "in the course of" might well be and has been interpreted to mean "during the period of," and that, I suggest, is rather loose. Of course the other phrase, "arising out of," was added in the legislation for Workmen's Compensation. This is an attempt to improve on that phrase, but to secure a workman in his property which does not arise from actual obligation to his employer.

We are dealing definitely with the matter of copyright. We are dealing under that with the employment of one person under a contract of service where some matter, say, about copyright is likely to arise. It is very difficult to see a contract of service in which "in the course of"— that is in the hours given over to the purpose of the service contracted for— the employee could produce anything that would not fall under this regulation here. He might, of course, by a breach of his contract. In other words, the employee might apply himself to the production of something outside the terms of his contract with his employer, and in that respect break his contract by devoting time to it which should have been devoted to the service of the contractor on something else. The whole thing is rather involved, and is open to a lot of argument, but so far as I have been able to read it, the intention of the Deputy's amendment is definitely in the Bill. I suggest to the Deputy that he might leave it over so that I might have an opportunity of consulting with him privately, and then if necessary we can discuss the matter further on the Report Stage.

I am quite agreeable.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.
Section 157 put and agreed to.
Sections 158 to 174, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 175—Sub-Section (1).
Provided that—
(i.) before making an order under this section in respect of any foreign country (other than a country with which a convention relating to copyright and binding on Saorstát Eireann exists) the Governor-General shall be satisfied that that foreign country has made, or has undertaken to make, such provisions, if any, as it appears to the Governor-General expedient to require for the protection of works entitled to copyright under the provisions of this Part of this Act;

I move amendment 23:—

In sub-section (1), page 66, line 5, after the words "Governor-General" to insert the words "acting on the advice of the Executive Council." and in line 8, after the words "Governor-General" to insert the words "acting on the advice of the Executive Council."

The amendment is merely to add the additional words proposed, which were obviously omitted from the original draft.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 175 as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 176 and 177 agreed to.
SECTION 178—Sub-Section 2).
(2) He shall also, if written demand is made before the expiration of twelve months after publication, deliver within one month after receipt of that written demand or, if the demand was made before publication, within one month after publication, to some address in Dublin named in the demand a copy of the book for, or in accordance with the directions of, the authority having the control of each of the following libraries, namely: the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the University Library, Cambridge, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and the National Library of Wales. In the case of an encyclopaedia, newspaper, review, magazine, or work published in a series of numbers or parts, the written demand may include all numbers or parts of the work which may be subsequently published.

I beg to move the following amendment which has not been tabled::—In sub-section (2), line 22, to delete the words "Library of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh," and to substitute the words "National Library of Scotland."

The object of the amendment is merely to put in the correct name of the library.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On this section I should like that the House would give some consideration to what are the obligations put upon publishers in this country with regard to the delivery of books to libraries. Originally, the obligation used to be that copies of every book published had to be delivered to the British Museum, and copies on demand had to be delivered to the places mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 178, and, in addition, to Trinity College, Dublin. The obligation of publishers prior to this was, therefore, to deliver one copy to the British Museum automatically and to deliver on demand five other copies.

The obligation which is now placed on publishers, if this is passed, is that there should be delivered automatically to the British Museum one copy, and that there should be then in addition to this the four other copies which are referred to in the sub-section, and one to Trinity College, Dublin, and one to the National Library. So far, the publishers' obligations are, in the matter of mere numbers, increased by one. I think it will be regarded by most Deputies in this House as desirable to continue the getting by this country of a single copy of every book published in England. It is at our disposal as to where that copy should go, but I think it desirable that the single copy coming here should be continued. That can be obtained if publishers in this country deliver, automatically, a single copy of every book published here to the British Museum. That is the balance. We can get a single copy of every book published in England if we give back in return a single copy of every book published here. That is the bargain that has been struck. There is a further obligation being put on publishers here to deliver of everything they publish a copy to Trinity College, Dublin, and a copy to the National Library, and then a copy to each of those four libraries outside the country. There are two points for consideration. When we get a single copy of every book published in England we are going to continue what used to be the practice, and that book shall go to Trinity College, Dublin, on the grounds that the collection is already there, and that if it were diverted from Trinity College to, say, the National Library, you would only have a collection up to a certain period in Trinity College, and beyond that period in the National Library.

It was considered under the circumstances advisable to continue the flow of that book to Trinity College, Dublin. In that respect certain representations were made with regard to the difficulty of access to Trinity College Library. The matter was raised before the Committee, and Deputy Professor Thrift indicated that if a case could be brought before him where any genuine reader was refused access to the library—Deputy Thrift did not admit that there was any lack of access to the College—and if that could be proved, any difficulties there were would be removed. Having decided that a single copy of a book coming across from England should go to Trinity College, Dublin, and that a single copy of every book published in Ireland should go to the British Museum this Bill, in addition, imposes the obligation of delivering a copy to the National Library, and four other copies to libraries outside the country. That was objected to at the Committee. One member of the Committee who represented the authors held that it was to the advantage of authors that these books should be sent to these four libraries—Oxford, Cambridge, Scotland and Wales. I cannot say that any arguments were put forward to justify that publishers should be made to pay for what was alleged to be entirely for the benefit of Irish authors. I am not disposed to insist, but I draw attention here to what was laid down. No amendment was put down in Committee, but one could be put down on the next Stage dealing with this matter.

It is, I think, a matter for argument to find out how far any benefit is going to come to the country, which benefit publishers should pay for while the advantage would go to the authors, as alleged. The only thing that is necessary is that a single copy should go across to the other side, and that in return we should get a single copy of every book published on the other side. Is it right that the copy coming across should be continued to Trinity College and then having the collection in Trinity College to insist that Irish publishers should add to that collection by giving an additional copy of everything published here in the future. Should we go anything farther, and insist that a single copy of everything published here should go to the National Library, and further that four copies should go across to the other libraries? I deal with that on Committee, and it can be raised again on the Report Stage.

I should like to corroborate, and more than corroborate, what the Minister has said. I cannot say that Trinity College has been perfect in the matter of this access, because its accommodation is limited, but I can most emphatically claim on behalf of the authorities that it regards at present, and as far as possible in the future will continue to regard, this trust as a national trust, and that the books it holds there are for the good of the whole country. I can certainly say that within the very limit of what our accommodation permits facilities should be given to every genuine student to consult the books. I believe that pretty soon there will come, and I believe they are in the course of coming, increased facilities, so as to meet every possible demand for consulting books by students in Trinity College Library. I would entirely support everything the Minister has said with regard to Trinity College. With regard to what the Minister has said in dealing with this section, I think it is a very substantial gain for this country that these copies should be held in the public libraries of other countries. It brings our literary work and literary culture under the notice of a much wider range of people than it might otherwise reach. I would certainly take the view that there is a real gain to the whole country by a continuance of this privilege on our part, that is, the gift of those books to the principal libraries of Great Britain.

It is very doubtful whether this provision of free copies of his books to a variety of public libraries is an advantage to the author. There are books and books. There are some books which I have no doubt would be largely advertised for the author, by this provision, and it would help to sell the books. Those who had read the book in the library would buy it. They would speak about it to others who had not the advantage of or facilities for reading it in the library, and they would buy it. But there are works, costly of production, that could be sold only at a high price, and the larger the access of the public to these books, without purchase, the worse it would be for the author.

That is one consideration. The second, I would submit, is that if it is an advantage for the author, why should the author not pay for it? Why should the publisher pay for it? The publisher takes great risks. The publishing firm has a large amount of capital invested in this. For one book they publish that sells well, twenty will have to be disposed of later as remainders or go as waste paper to the manufacturers to make pulp. This, it is contended, and I think with good reason, is an unjust tax upon one particular trade. Whatever of advantage will accrue to the author let the author pay for, or, let it be a part of the valuable consideration in his transactions with his publisher, as to which of them is to provide the work. Why a publishing firm in Ireland, handicapped in such a variety of ways, should be called upon to provide rich libraries in Great Britain with free copies it is very difficult to understand. What advantage will accrue to the publisher? On another item of it I am very loath to speak, though I think I ought to speak on it.

I do not want to take up an illiberal attitude with regard to Trinity College. At the same time, I think it is well to remember that when this privilege was accorded to that great institution it was the only university in Ireland. Trinity College had many advantages which I will not dwell upon here and now. This has been one advantage, and admittedly of great price. The National University of Ireland, which was created in recent years to provide for the people of Ireland who had long been excluded from that great University, has practically no library and no funds wherewith to furnish itself with a library, and here we are making what is ostensibly an Irish Statute, to provide for copyright in Ireland, and instead of coming to the aid of that institution it is proposed that we should perpetuate the advantage that is given to its rich rival. There should be equity in this matter. I quite agree to the proposal to give it to the National Library of Ireland. That is for all the people, and it is open to everybody, practically night as well as day. There are practically no restrictions, except those of respectability and orderly conduct, as to the classes of people who are permitted to utilise its services. I certainly would object very strongly to this clause. I put down no amendment to it, it is true; I wanted to hear what case could be made for it. If there was some sort of reciprocity gained by it, if any advantage could be shown to accrue to the people from it, I certainly would not oppose it.

Can the Minister tell us whether there are any obligations on these libraries to house the multitudinous books that are sent them, or do they make a selection and merely house those which they think are worthy of house room or that fit in with the general scheme of their libraries? May they give away, or throw away, or sell, the free copies that they receive? In general, I would like to know whether this free gift imposes any obligation, or whether there is any understanding with the libraries that have been in the habit, for so many years, of getting these free copies, as to what they will do with them. I can hardly imagine that they undertake to give house room to every book that is published, and yet if they make a selection I would like to know that there is some standard of selection and discrimination, and what that is. I make the suggestion, too, that we might consider, where there is any obligation to provide free copies to libraries outside the country, some of the growing new libraries in the United States of America. Recent experience has led me to the knowledge that there is a considerable number of libraries being built up in the United States, and they are seeking, in out-of-the-way places, for books dealing with this country to build up their libraries. It may be said that they are all able to pay. No doubt they are, but if there is any question of the benefit of the author to be taken into account, I would imagine that the benefit that would accrue to the author by a statutory gift of this kind to an American library would be very much greater than a free gift to three or four British libraries.

On the question between publisher and author I am not very clear. I rather imagine that in the fixing of the price to an author the number of free copies more or less enters into the calculation, and I am also aware of the fact that publishers are not ungenerous in sending out review copies, so that I really do not think that that enters into it very much, except one is assuming that in any case the library will possess itself of such a copy, that if it were a book fitting for that library, the library would purchase it. But before making this a statutory gift, I would like to feel that there is some assurance that the books that are to be sent freely to the libraries will be stored, or if there is to be any culling, that those that are discarded will be returned. The object, I would imagine, from the point of view of the State, in guaranteeing them free books, is to have some assurance that the work of Irish authors will be in some way perpetuated, that it will be at least available somewhere at some future time. From the State point of view that is the only argument I can see. It is not our business to go to extremes in advertising the work of authors or the publications of publishing houses. I am glad that the Minister has offered to leave this question open. Presumably, while he is opposing the section as a whole, he is not quite sure about the value of this provision and he is leaving it for discussion and possible amendment. I would like him, between now and the Report Stage, to give consideration to the suggestion that, in place of these British libraries, or some of them, or one of them, it might be more desirable in the interests of those for whom the sub-section is compiled, that one American library, or more, would be substituted.

With regard to the point just raised by Deputy Johnson, I want to emphasise the point that so far as sub-section (2) is concerned only books that are asked for have to be supplied, and therefore the question of storing them does not arise. With regard to other libraries, I believe it is the practice of the British Museum, though I am not quite sure of it, to keep every book. In connection with Trinity College, so far as Irish books are concerned, I do not think the point arises, because I think they always keep Irish books. The only question with regard to the keeping of a book or not in Trinity College depends on whether it belongs to the fleeting class of fiction that is so much published nowadays. That kind is not kept. But practically none of that type is published in Ireland. In my original remarks I might have laid a great deal more stress than I did upon what the Minister has said as to the value to the student public of having a continuous collection. If I did not belong to Trinity College I think I would be able to say as emphatically as I do now that any real student would feel that the value of a collection of books was most seriously impaired if on a certain day he had to go to a certain place to consult some books, and had to go from that to some other place to consult the remaining books. It is the continuity that is of value to students. That arises particularly in connection with periodicals, but it is quite general. It is unfortunate, I admit, that the National University has not the collection behind it that Trinity College happens to have, but we have to face the facts, and the facts are that this collection of books is at present stored in Trinity College.

Can you hold out any hope that the two Universities may yet become one?

We could not look so far into the future. If we tried, it might lead to a very lengthy debate, and it might not expedite the discussion on this question.

It would ease this question?

It would ultimately. We never try to set bounds to the flowing tide, and we cannot foretell what the future holds, but I do not think it would be wise to deal with that particular question now. I do stress that it is the continuity we want to have, and when we have a valuable collection we should make an effort to maintain its continuity.

I would like to supplement the remarks of Deputy Thrift as to the co-operation that exists between libraries and students generally, apart from Trinity College altogether. I passed some libraries to-day, and I saw some of Professor Magennis's volumes there. There are no more welcome volumes in our library than the works of the same gentleman. More and more our libraries will have to work together and supplement the efforts of one another. As far as scientific periodical literature is concerned, there is a certain amount of arrangement made to-day between the different libraries. I am sure Deputy Magennis knows that it exists between the University, the National Library, the Academy, and other institutions in Dublin. There is no waste and there is no dog-in-the-manger methods, about Trinity College. We welcome students. Our shelves are open to any scholar, whether his subject is Irish history— particularly so I might say in that case —or any other matter.

I did not speak to disprove, even in advance, anything that my friends Deputy Thrift and Deputy Alton have just said. I drew attention to the fact that at the time this privilege accrued to Trinity College it was solely because it was the one University in Ireland. Now, because Trinity College has that monopoly for some centuries, the argument is made that it should continue to have that exceptional privilege. There is such a thing in these days as advertising on the part of Universities. Deputy Alton is well aware of that. He and I are not unconnected with a certain movement which exists to make known to the various universities of the world the special qualities and the special type of studies that may be pursued at a particular institution. Can there be a better advertisement for Trinity College than that everywhere in the Copyright Acts, the Berne Conventions and all the rest, the University that is named is the University of Dublin—Trinity College, Dublin? There is that as a natural and inevitable consequence of the continuation of this privilege. I quite confess that it appears illiberal on the part of a representative of another University to take up this attitude, but at the same time whether I like it or not I feel that I have to make the case.

What other case, against the idea of doing justice to the National University, is to be placed in the argument? Simply this: that research students, bibliographers and all that fry will find it easier to pursue their investigations under one roof than if they have to go from roof A to roof B; in such a vast city as this, not yet greater Dublin and yet so vast, with so few transit facilities that to go from College Green to Earlsfort Terrace would be prohibitive ! Why, our students and professors go not merely to the British Museum in London but to the Universities of Paris and Italy.


And some go further.

If that was intended as a contribution to this debate it might have been made long ago. They do go to these places and they pursue their studies there. Why should it be a fatal argument against depriving Trinity College of this unpaid-for and most valuable advertising arrangement, merely that it would entail some sort of inconvenience? I think we should limit the giving of the book either to the National Library of Ireland, which is a public institution, or, if it be given to Trinity College, it should be given to the National University of Ireland as well.

I would like to have a further explanation as to what Deputy Magennis has said—"to be given not merely to Trinity College but to the National University of Ireland as well." Deputy Magennis knows, probably none better than Deputy Magennis, that the National University consists of two houses in Merrion Square which could not house the books that would come in for a single year.

The offices of the National University consist of two houses in Merrion Square.

The only place in which the National University as such could house books is the two houses in Merrion Square. If this is to be taken seriously it will mean that there will be an obligation on publishers to deliver a book to Trinity College, Dublin, and a book to each of the three colleges.

No; to the University College, Dublin.

And to the University College, Dublin.

Not "and to." I said "to."

Well, to University College, Dublin. Starting off from this period, leaving aside all the advantages of having a collection together, let us say there is a certain book to be delivered by Irish publishers to some one place in the country. Why should it be the University College, Dublin, rather than the University College, Cork?

Why should it be University College, Dublin, rather than Trinity College, Dublin? I think we immediately find ourselves up against the necessity of insisting that publishers will provide not one book or two books, but probably four or five—to the three colleges of the National University, to the National Library and to Trinity College. I think if that were the situation and the suggestion, we would have to come to a decision that there should be a single book supplied, and that only to the National Library. That would be the best suggestion, I think, of those. But all that we are considering, at the moment, is the obligation on Free State publishers to provide for the future a copy of Free State published works, because we cannot impose upon English publishers the necessity of giving any further copies than the one. That is the most we can get. That is really the big thing. The question is that a single book is going to come along as it did before and it has to be diverted to some resident place. Where is that going to be? I do not say that this is settled. I have consulted quite a number of people about it. I have spoken about it to the authorities of the University Colleges—I think to them all, but certainly to two of them—and I have had some communications with the National Library people, and the whole difficulty is the question of housing. There is not one of them, really, who is prepared to take the single copy of the English published works except there is added to that a provision of money for library accommodation. That was the difficulty I found myself in when we were deciding where this single copy coming from England was to be housed.

Leaving out the argument as to why a student or research worker should not run about from College Green to Earlsfort Terrace, and from College Green to Leinster Lawn, there is a decided advantage in having a collection together. If that collection be thrown open to the public, if they have better reading facilities, I do not see that there can be any great complaint on that score. I do not know what change may happen before this Bill gets through, but I am disposed to think it is a matter of argument as to whether better accommodation can be procured. Supposing this section goes through in regard to the single book from England being diverted to Trinity College, Dublin, I do hold that a selection should be made. I think it should be necessary, and it is put into practice at the moment. If it were found that facilities were not given to the reading public, if they could not get access to this collection, there might have to be a change. This whole provision can be repealed, but I do think that the advantages at the moment are very much in favour of letting the single copy of the book come as before to Trinity College, Dublin. I think it follows that there is not much good in arguing that Irish publishers should give a single copy of everything published in Ireland to the National Library and to the different University Colleges. The obligation should be only put upon them to house a single collection of the books published in England and the Free State.

Deputy Johnson made a point as to getting an American library concession rather than these I mentioned. I certainly think there would be no hesita- tion in making it compulsory that a single copy of every book published in the Free State be diverted to some American library if, in return, we got from America a copy of every book published there. There will be no hesitation in coming to a bargain of that sort. There is no provision allowing such arrangements to be made, but really the arrangements are so far off that I think if an arrangement did come to be made we would have to have legislation empowering a contract to be entered into.

I understood from the Minister that the reciprocal arrangement in Section 1 only applied to one copy to the British Museum and two copies here from the English publishers.

One copy from the English publishers and one copy to the British Museum.

You have not any comparative section in the British Act which will designate four or five colleges in Ireland, or libraries in Ireland, to which British publishers shall send their copies on application.

That is quite sound.

If you provide that on a written demand from an American library the Irish publishers of Irish works shall send one free copy, I think that is not requiring any more than this reciprocal arrangement.

The Deputy is correct in this, more or less. The accommodation in regard to England is a single copy coming over here in return for a single copy going to the British Museum. Sub-section 2, where we are handing over four copies, was inserted on the application of the authors.

My point is that from the author's point of view a single provision in regard to the National Library would be more beneficial.

Much more beneficial, but how this arose is a matter of history. There was some arrangement under which books were delivered to these places and it was urged, on behalf of the authors, that inasmuch as there is at present a collection of Irish works at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University Library, and Cambridge, it would be well to continue them. I was not impressed with the argument. I do not know why we should put this burden on the publishers. I would say this much about the publishers, that the burden upon them has been increased by a single book. If the single book could be wiped out the publishers are under no further obligation than they would be when they entered into their business. To this extent there is no great hardship inflicted on them.

But with regard to America, I would certainly say this, even though it did incur Government expense in seeing that a single copy of every book published in the Free State went to America, if we could get in return a single copy of everything published in America, it would be a good bargain.

As regards the obligations of housing, the position of Trinity College is, of course, going to be somewhat different under this Bill to what it was previously. Previously Trinity College had an agency arrangement which cost them several hundred pounds per annum to have a choice made as to the books which were demanded by Trinity College. At the moment the obligation is that the publisher of every book published in the Free State shall deliver, at his own expense, and there is a proviso in regard to certain things which may be excluded. In most of the places where these books used to go, they were very much embarrassed by the amount of material flowing in. There are certain cellars in the British Museum where "Comic Cuts,""Chips" and these things, which have to be received, are housed for a certain period. It was to prevent that sort of thing occurring that we limited that provision to sub-section (1). I do not propose, at the moment, to put down any amendment even for the Report Stage with regard to sub-section (2). I simply spoke here with the intention of ventilating what I felt was, to a certain extent, a hardship, and I leave it to anybody who is interested in the matter, who thinks that justice is not being done, to put down an amendment for the next date with regard to sub-section (2) or any other sub-section dealing with the delivery of books to libraries.

I did not think it proper perhaps for me to refer to the matter, but as the Minister has referred to it I might say that this is a valuable privilege and one that we value very much. But it is not a privilege that does not impose upon us a very great and a very big responsibility, namely, the responsibility of providing storage, which is a very serious one, and not only that, but the cost of the upkeep of the number of books that comes to us is also very serious. We do not shrink from it, but looking to the future it is within the bounds of possibility that, much as we would dislike it, it might be necessary for the College to have to come to the State and to ask to be relieved of the enormous responsibility. I hope the day may never come when we are forced to do that, for the reason I have given. It is not a gift which is not costly to the receiver. It most undoubtedly is, however much they may value it as they do.

Question—"That Section 178 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 179 to 183 were agreed to and added to the Bill.
Every person who prints, reproduces, or sells, or exposes, offers, or has in his possession for sale, any pirated copies of any musical work, or has in his possession any plates for the purpose of printing or reproducing pirated copies of any musical work, shall (unless he proves that he acted innocently) be guilty of an offence under this section punishable on summary conviction, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and on a second or subsequent conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months or to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. Provided that a person convicted of an offence under this section who has not previously been convicted of such an offence, and who proves that the copies of the musical work in respect of which the offence was committed had printed on the title page thereof a name and address purporting to be that of the printer or publisher, shall not be liable to any penalty under this section unless it is proved that the copies were to his knowledge pirated copies.
(2) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may take into custody without warrant any person who in any street or public place sells or exposes, offers, or has in his possession for sale any pirated copies of any such musical work as may be specified in any general written authority addressed to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, and signed by the apparent owner of the copyright in such work or his agent thereto authorised in writing, requesting the arrest, at the risk of such owner, of all persons found committing offences under this section in respect to such work, or who offer for sale any pirated copies of any such specified musical work by personal canvass or by personally delivering advertisements or circulars.
(3) A copy of every written authority addressed to the Commissioner of the Gárdá Síochana under this section shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any person without payment of any fee, and any person may take copies of or make extracts from any such authority.

I move Amendment No. 24:—

In sub-section (2), page 71, lines 7 and 8, to delete the words "Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána" and substitute the words "superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the district to which the authority relates."

Amendment agreed to.

I move Amendment No. 25:—

In sub-section (3), page 71, lines 15 and 16, to delete the words "the Commissioner" and substitute the words "a superintendent."

Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That Section 184, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 185, 186 and 187 were agreed to and added to the Bill.
Schedules and Title put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken on Wednesday, 15th December.