I move the Second Reading of the Bill. The long title of this Bill is: "An Act to preserve in Saorstát Eireann all copyrights which were subsisting in the late United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the 5th day of December, 1921." The Act is a short one and is simple. The necessity for it has been brought about by a decision given by the Supreme Court in a case litigated over a year ago, and by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court which, of course, is recognised as the highest authority on what the state of the law is at any time in this country, it has been discovered that the intention of the legislature, as expressed here during the course of debate with regard to the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Act, 1927, has not in fact been carried out. It was intended in that legislation that the time gap which existed as between the date of the Treaty and the date of the passing of the Act of 1927 should be bridged and that copyrights which had previously subsisted, as well as property in patents, trade marks and designs should be carried over.
The Supreme Court have now decided two things; they decided, first of all, that copyright subsisting prior to the 5th day of December, 1921, was not carried over by any Article of the Constitution, and that the wishes of the legislature, in so far as it expressed the wishes of the legislature, were not carried out by the Act of 1927. A further point arising from the decision is referred to in the second clause. The Supreme Court held that the word "acquired," as used in that particular section of the Act of 1927, can only mean acquired by assignment; at least the implication is that the word "acquired" can only mean acquired by assignment, and consequently the more general meaning attempted to be given to that word is not there. Hence the second clause. The third clause simply gathers up the first two.
The last clause has to deal with this point. It was definitely stated and always understood that the 1927 Act had brought about a particular state of things, that copyright previously subsisting was carried on and given full effect to in this country. The law has now been declared to be otherwise. There are certain people consequently whose interests have to be considered.
In the case in question the company got the assignment of two musical compositions from the composer. It was the case of the Performing Rights Society v. the Bray Council. The Performing Rights Society took action on the basis that the law was as it had often been stated to be and always had been held to be prior to this decision. They took that case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court have held, in fact, that the law is not as it was thought to be and as it was intended to be. The Performing Rights Society, at any rate, took their case to all the Courts in this country before whom they could bring it and their case has been turned down. The other people have to be considered— the Bray Council. The Bray Council have acted on the law as it is now found to be. These are the only two parties. Both have rights to a certain extent. Both have litigated their rights and there is a particular decision before us. We want to amend the law at the same time so that there should be no injury put upon other parties. We have only the instance of the two parties.
There has only been one alleged infringement of copyright litigated, that is, the Performing Rights Society versus the Bray Council. It is hardly likely that there are others. If there were they would have come to light before this. But in case there are others Clause 4 is introduced to meet the circumstances. Clause 4 lays down that no remedy or relief, whether by way of damages, injunction, costs, expenses or otherwise, shall be recoverable or granted in respect or by reason of an infringement in Saorstát Eireann before the passing of this Act of a copyright by this Act declared to subsist or deemed to have subsisted in Saorstát Eireann. We want to patch up the breach of continuity that there has been. We recognise that there has been an interim.
There may have been infringements but if there were any infringements it is probable that they would have come to light.
We think the best thing to do is to patch up the copyright, to preserve continuity and to ensure continuity for the future and to say with regard to any infringement that may have happened in the past when the law was as the Supreme Court declared it to be— that no action shall lie. We do not consider that we are prejudicing anybody's rights in that respect, because we say if any infringements had taken place they certainly would have come to light before this. The measure is difficult in the reading of it but the effect is simple. It is simply to renew the continuity that we always thought had been effected by the old 1927 Act. The Supreme Court decision stands. We want to amend the law and to amend it retrospectively.
