I might, with your consent, deal generally with the principle of these amendments. A simple explanation will suffice. First of all, there are two new sub-sections —4 and 6—to Sections 154 and 155. These are amendments 8 and 9, and are intended to apply to the translation into Irish of any books published in Saorstát Eireann before the Treaty. We had already agreed in principle with regard to the making of compilations for educational purposes. We want that to apply also to books published in the Free State prior to the Treaty. The amendment down to Section 167 is merely a drafting amendment to correct a wrong reference to an earlier section in the Bill. The last amendment, No. 42, is to ensure that under the section dealing with the provision of copies of books to Trinity College and to English libraries that they will not get double copies. In addition, there are amendments 24, 25 and 26, which are consequential. The other amendments put down as from the Government merely make a change in the Bill consequent on what I forecasted might be the result of certain amendments that have been passed. It has been discovered that, in consequence of amendments passed in the Dáil, and accepted here, the Copyright Act of 1911 does not apply to this country. Consequently, we have taken the step of leaving the Commonwealth Union. The net result is that, instead of our getting automatic reciprocity as between England and the self-governing Dominions and the Free State we will have to make separate arrangements with each of the Dominions. These can easily be made, but it will mean a little delay. The net result of these amendments can be summed up in this way: We have two separate sections. Section 175 deals with the immediate extension of this part of the Act to Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Dominions and Protectorates. Section 176 gives power to the Governor-General, on the advice of the Executive Council by Order, to extend this to works published elsewhere than Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Dominions and Protectorates. We have to delete Section 175 and make such consequential changes in Section 176 and elsewhere in this part of the Act as would allow the Governor-General to extend by Order the same things as were previously decided in the case of foreign countries, also to Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Dominions and Protectorates. That is the net result of the other amendments down in the name of the Government. A big majority of the amendments deal with readjustment of that part of the Act and the new situation. The net effect of the new situation is that we must make our arrangements with each Dominion and Protectorate separately, instead of having all done at once.
GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS.
Does that rule out the provisions of the Berne Convention?
No, we are still in the Berne Convention but we have left the Commonwealth Union.
I would like if the Minister would be able to deal with the difficulty that I put before him, about making some arrangements by which we would be able to confer copyright on American works excluded under our present arrangement, in order to obtain copyright in the interregnum. I have been away in connection with the Lane pictures and I was not able to go into the matter.
As I explained, in so far as our relations depend, anything we agree about can be adjusted under Section 176. In other words, this Order can be made applicable under certain conditions to America. The difficulty about the interregnum period does not lie with us. It lies in the legislation of the United States. The rule we have seems to forbid the giving of any retro-active effect. The Order made is the Order which will be enforced here under Section 176 in the interregnum period to which the section refers. We would have no difficulty with it, but under the existing legislation it is doubtful if the American President could make his Order have retrospective effect. As far as we can arrange things on this side this arrangement will be made.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I would gather from the Minister's ominous silence that the Senators are not quite clear what these amendments may extend to. If there are any amendments that involve any departure perhaps the Minister will say a few words about them by way of explanation.
I move:—
Section 154, sub-section (1). After the word "and" in line 38 to insert the words "in case the author is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, and desires to secure copyright in Saorstát Eireann, the work for which copyright is sought to be secured shall be printed in Saorstát Eireann, anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding; and"
I see that in the report of the debate on the Committee Stage, Senator Brown—and I think the Minister— stated he was fortified by the opinion of the Attorney-General, for both of whose opinions I have the very highest regard. Senator Brown stated that in his opinion Canada was absolutely outside the Berne Convention. He said: "Canada is distinctly outside the Berne Convention and I do not think any lawyer-reading the provisions I have read would come to any other conclusion." In Copinger's "The Law of Copyright," sixth edition, 1927, it is definitely stated that "Canada adhered to the Berne Convention and to the Protocol of 1914 on January 1st, 1924."
CATHAOIRLEACH
That was quoted in your absence by Senator Bennett.
I believe so. That is the reason I am raising it now. Copinger's book is the highest authority on copyright law. Canada cannot be within the Berne Convention if we are outside it. The Canadian Almanac, 1926, edited by two lawyers, A.W. Thomas and Horace C. Cooner, is more specific. On page 411 it says:—
"On the same date Canada's adherence to the revised Convention of Berne and the extension of the British Copyright Act, 1911, became effective."
I would like to refer you, sir, to Standing Order No. 70: "The Cathaoirleach shall have power in his discretion to refuse an amendment tabled for the Fourth Stage of a Bill if he is of opinion that it is substantially the same as an amendment which has been rejected on the Committee Stage and that the subject matter thereof has already been sufficiently debated."
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am aware of that. That is why I said I was going to allow discussion. I have power to prevent it, but I did not wish to rule the Senator out as the circumstances were very special, and he attaches great importance to the amendment. He did not get an opportunity on the Committee Stage owing to being detained elsewhere on public business.
I cannot understand the divergent views of the lawyers on this question. I believe the Berne Convention is to meet in Rome this year. As we have waited so long, it might be well to have the copyright section deleted or amended in the sense that I wish and let our representative get a decisive ruling at the Convention if we are in and Canada out, both countries having the same provisions. Some time ago I bought an Anthology of Irish verse. The compiler paid a tribute to the assistance he got from Senator Yeats. That book was published by Macmillans and was printed in England. It contained a considerable number of theses which could not be copyright owing to the lapse of time. It also contained 60 contributions in which copyright existed, and the compiler paid a tribute to the authors' indulgence in allowing him to reproduce them. The contributions of other people in which no copyright existed were reproduced in England and published there, and copyright was claimed for the whole lot. I submit that if there was such a provision as is embodied in my amendment, that abuse of copyright would not be permitted. This matter was dealt with at considerable length on the Committee Stage. We were told in the Press and by Senator Yeats at considerable length that this was an illiterate country in which no one reads. He assured us he would go to the Border if this amendment were carried. If that is true, what is the object of proposing this amendment? A good many people may read unknown to those who are opposing the amendment. We were told: "Here there are 3,000,000, the vast majority semi-illiterates who read nothing." The same person who wrote that also wrote this. "An Open Letter to Rudyard Kipling," apparently when Kipling was endeavouring to protect his own copyright in America. Here is the extract:—
"But you, brother (because he was a poet, I suppose), have withheld your fears for your country and mine until they could yield you a profit in two continents. After all this high speech about the Lord and the hour of national darkness, it shocks me to find this following your verses: ‘Copyrighted in the United States of America by Rudyard Kipling.' You are not in want. You are the most successful man of letters of your time, and yet you are not above making profit out of the perils of your country. You ape the lordly speech of the Prophets, and you conclude by warning everybody not to reprint your words at their peril. In Ireland every poet we honour has dedicated his genius to his country without gain, and has given without stint, without any niggardly withholding of his gift when his nation was in dark and evil days. Not one of our writers, when deeply moved about Ireland, has tried to sell the gift of the spirit. You, brother, hurt me when you declare your principles, and declare a dividend to yourself out of your patriotism openly and at the same time."
The men who are opposing this amendment are the men who got their inspiration and a good deal of their material from what goes on in this country. After all we are interested in this country and in the people here. Having got a footing here they proceed as the Canadian authors did. When they have made good in London, Gilbert Parker and Ralph Connor have to go back for their Canadian copyright and print in Canada. If that is a hardship it is a hardship that at least gives a certain amount of employment, and it may in time enable Canada to introduce very beautiful editions of books. I believe we had a reputation in this country hundreds of years ago for the manner in which books were reproduced. Within the last few years I have seen beautiful books reproduced in Dublin at a comparatively moderate price and I think the citizens of Saorstát Eireann are not under any hardship if they are compelled to do what Canadian authors have to do.
I would like to say— notwithstanding what my friend, Senator Dowdall, has urged—that I am still absolutely of opinion that the introduction of this amendment into this Bill will exclude us from the Berne Convention. In my opinion Canada has broken a condition of the Berne Convention. Canada has not been formally excluded from the Berne Convention. She could be excluded from the Berne Convention to-morrow and it is only because it is not worth anyone's while she has not been. Why is it not worth while? Because Canada is 3,500 miles from this country and the only country that is near her is America, and America is not a member of the Berne Convention. I understand there is to be a meeting of the Berne Convention this year and very probably the question of the Canadian position will be brought up. If it is I have no doubt whatever that unless Canada changes her law of copyright, she will have to leave the Berne Convention. The results were explained when this matter was before the House by Senator Yeats and by myself, and, I think, also by the Minister. It would be absolutely fatal and merely mean that every work produced by Irish writers who did not take the rather mean course of making themselves citizens of Great Britain could be pirated in every other country which is a member of the Berne Convention.
I am in great difficulty. I disscussed all this fully on the Committee Stage, but it seems I shall have to discuss it again and bore the House very much. I asked Senator Brown whether he thought I could omit my discussion of it and he thinks the matter of such importance that I must re-discuss the whole thing again.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Remember he is not the only Senator here.
We will release Senator Yeats.
I would like to know what the amendment means. It states: "In case the author is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann and desires to secure copyright in Saorstát Eireann the work for which copyright is sought to be secured shall be printed in Saorstát Eireann." How much of the work is to be printed here? For instance, if the sales are a prospective 10,000, of which 1,000 is to be sold in the Saorstát, is the whole 10,000 to be printed here, or shall he be compelled only to print as many as he hopes to sell here?
A first edition of 50.
It seems the matter can be very well overcome by printing a very small edition here if the author thinks he can print cheaper outside the Saorstát. Publication is a commercial matter just the same as every other business matter, and if he can get it printed at a cheaper rate outside naturally he will overcome this provision by printing the very smallest edition possible here. I think it would be unreasonable to compel him to print here books which he expects to sell elsewhere. If we can only compel him to print here the number which he can sell here, I do not think we are going to give a tremendous amount of employment to printers. It is really from that point of view the amendment is proposed—to get work done here which might otherwise be done elsewhere. If we are going to create a great deal of annoyance and put the few writers we have to a financial loss as a result of it, I do not think it would be worth doing so for the sake of the amount of employment that would be given. We have not many writers but we have a few undoubtedly and I fear that the printing of the output of these writers to the extent that it is sold in Ireland is an exceedingly small matter. It is certainly hardly a matter that would justify us in putting writers to this additional expense.
This is not so much the question of the printing here as to what would ensure in the event of a law being passed making it compulsory to have the work printed in Ireland. We would then be excluded from the advantages of the Berne Convention. We would have another exodus of writers who would cross over to London.
On the last occasion that this matter was discussed, I ploughed a very lonely furrow here. The soil was very difficult in which to steer my horses. Senator Yeats made it still more difficult. He made a violent onslaught upon all things Irish.
I did not.
Possibly I should not say a violent onslaught, but he subjected them to severe criticism, and, in fact, we were branded almost as an illiterate nation, not worth printing for. He drew a pathetic picture of an author to publish whose book various attempts were made in certain countries. I shall not name the author. Neither did Senator Yeats name the author, and I am glad because of the delicacy and the sensitiveness——
James Joyce.
—— and the literary taste of the people of this country, that he did not name the author upon whose behalf a petition was signed by the highbrows——
By 150 of the most eminent men in Europe.
By the most eminent men in Europe, if he prefers the title. The picture was drawn to play on the feelings of members of this House to such an extent that he secured the object he was aiming at. The object that Senator Dowdall's amendment would secure is that Irish authors resident in Ireland should before they secure copyright in their own country have at least the book printed in this country. I would like to ask Senator Yeats to give us the history of the book which he spoke of in such feeling terms on the last occasion. I would ask him is it true that the British Post Office authorities have really refused to send this book through their channels, that it has been actually refused in America, that the indelicacy and the outrageous character of that book were of such a nature that it would not be permitted to go through the ordinary channels of delivery in any Christian country? There are eminent men in various countries, many eminent men in literature, eminent men in science, eminent men in Christian life, and I shall leave it to this House to judge which is the greater eminence, Christian eminence or the eminence that would destroy all semblance of Christianity on the face of the earth? The Senator tells us that this appeal is sufficiently strong to influence this House, but if this House is influenced by the appeal, it will be a surprise for the gods.
Is this not rather beside the point?
It is not worth while to exclude Canada we are told. Canada is a big place compared with little Ireland. Ireland has a history behind it that perhaps more than overshadows the great wide lands of Canada, and if it is not worth while to exclude Sir Gilbert Parker and other writers of eminence in a land that has not had time for literary growth, surely poor little Ireland is a small place compared with these wonderful countries, and what is good enough for Canada—which is bubbling over with loyalty to the Imperial Confederation of Nations—I should say should be good enough for Ireland. The Senator made a threat that if he did not succeed in carrying his negative proposal he would cross the Border.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator to whom you are referring has not spoken or intervened in this debate at all. I think perhaps it is a little bit out of order to be referring back to parts of a speech delivered on a former occasion.
I anticipate that the Senator will speak.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps he will now. You want him to stand on the tail of your coat.
I think if we are to make a gesture towards the establishment of home industry and towards the relief of unemployment, this House should have no hesitation in passing the amendment of Senator Dowdall. It cannot do any harm, even if a few authors suffer a small financial loss. There is on the other side of the balance, the prospect of opening a field for an Irish industry that was closed down perhaps 100 years ago, which shows a wonderful prospect of revival, and which should be extremely advantageous and have good economic effect on the printing trade of Dublin.
I think on the whole I shall speak. I think the Senator is quite correct. I do not like it to be supposed that I did not mention the name of James Joyce because the book was a discredit to him. I did not mention the name, because it had nothing to do with the issue. Some 150 of the most eminent men in Europe signed the protest against the mutilation and piracy of James Joyce's book in America. Some of these men sincerely admired that book and thought it a very great book. Some of those who signed the protest did not admire it at all and signed it simply because of the copyright issue. I know of one case, certainly, where a very eminent person disapproved greatly of the book, but his signature was given because of the copyright issue. American publishers had a perfect right to print that book according to the law, because it was not copyright in America. Reputable American publishers do not so pirate work. There are more or less disreputable publishers who do. There is a publisher called Roothe who pirated this book of James Joyce. I am not going to defend James Joyce. It is a very difficult question. Has the Senator ever looked into Rabelais? Rabelais is looked upon as one of the greatest masters of the past, and what is to be said of James Joyce may be said of Rabelais.
I would point out to the Senator that attached to this petition is the name of Gentile, the Italian Minister of Education, who has restored religious teaching to the schools in Italy. Another who signed this was the great Catholic philosopher of Spain, Unamuno. Does he think, leaving aside these men of special religious achievement, that there is nothing to be said for a book or a man testified to by the head of the Spanish Academy, the President of the famous Russian Academy of Letters, by various members of the French Academy of great eminence, and by the greatest living mathematician, Einstein? When I heard the Senator put up Irish opinions as against these, as certainly and definitely right, then I was inclined to believe this was an illiterate nation. These things cannot be settled as easily as that. I do not know whether Joyce's "Ulysses" is a great work of literature. I have puzzled a great deal over that question.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We are travelling too far. We are not discussing this book.
All I will say is that it is the work of an heroic mind. I think Senator Dowdall acted without due thought in bringing forward this amendment. I was visited by an eminent Irish scholar who asked me to urge the House to throw out this printing clause in the interests of Irish scholarship, very largely in the interests of Irish Gaelic scholarship. Certain Irish books on phonetics are printed in Copenhagen and Germany because the characters do not exist in any Irish printing office. If this clause were passed, then in the case of those books written by Irishmen those firms would lose their Irish copyright.
He then however passed on to a very much more serious thing. Most of the work of scholarship has to be published at certain great presses which are subventioned, the Clarendon Press at Oxford and the University Press at Cambridge. We may take it that no Irish printer or publisher would deal with that kind of scholarship at all, for such works have a very small immediate sale. The sale is so small that it would not pay an Irish publisher to print those works without a subvention from the State or the University. But we are all thinking of the future. We are hoping that in the course of the next twenty or thirty years a very considerable reading public will grow up in this country. You are dealing with property which lasts not only for the lifetime of the author but for fifty years after his death. Some of the work of the scholars may be valuable property which they should have the right to leave to their children. If you pass this law you will pass a law which will injure Irish scholars. You will deprive those scholars of a copyright which may grow to be of great monetary value. We differ from Canada because in Canada there is a publishing centre and wealthy Universities. I think there are endowed University presses there. Furthermore, there is nothing in Canada like the great Irish republic of Letters which has grown up here for two centuries. One of the few means by which an Irish scholar can make money is by contributing to certain great collective publications like the universal histories now being published at the Cambridge Press. There are three great universal histories, ancient, modern and mediaeval, being published in many volumes by that Press. In those volumes portions are by separate scholars. Some are by Irish scholars. There is no possibility of getting those printed in Ireland. An Irish publisher could take out a whole section of one of those books dealing with Ireland and pirate it here. If there were no piracy then the Senator's printing clause would be inoperative. It is a clause which the whole world will regard as an incitement to piracy. There are also such compilations as the "Dictionary of National Biography," and the "Encyclopædia Britannica." Several of our Irish scholars have worked on these for many years.
There are always new editions. Universal histories will always be produced. The whole publishing and printing system by which Irish scholars live will be upset not only in dealing with these great compilations but in connection with another side of the question which Senator Dowdall has not thought of. If his final amendment down on the Paper is carried no Irish writer will be able to serialise his work in England. A young novelist will not be able to publish his stories in the "Windsor" or "Pall Mall" magazines. I have mentioned a case in which an eminent Irish writer has just finished an important autobiography which in the ordinary course of events would be published in an English newspaper. That work could be pirated here. The Irish newspapers might take out large sections. What would happen to an Irish author? He sends a story to the "Windsor Magazine." The "Windsor Magazine" says: "No, we cannot publish it; you are a citizen of the Free State." Someone in Ireland would pirate the story and then the right Senator Dowdall proposes to confer upon that person could exclude the "Windsor Magazine" from Ireland. Not only are you giving the Irish publisher the right to pirate sections from the magazines, newspapers, the great universal histories, the "Dictionary of National Biography," and "Encyclopædia Britannica," but you are going to give him the right to exclude from Ireland these publications. The thing is laughable. A sane man should not give two minutes' thought to the amendment. What are you going to gain in the end? If you have all the Irish writers that exist printing here in Dublin they are not sufficient to keep your printing presses busy for half a year.
What is your authority for saying that?
I cannot give statistics. I know pretty well who the Irish authors are whose works have some value in the market. They are not very numerous. If you get them all you cannot make a successful centre of printing in Ireland unless you get English publishers to print here. At this moment one of the Irish printers is successfully printing a number of popular novels for an English publisher. What will happen when you commit the first conspicuous act of piracy? There is a body called the Publishers' Association and another the Society of Authors. What will happen will be on a very much larger scale than what happened in the case of that pirated book in America when 150 authors protested not only to American sentiment but also made an appeal to American publishers to withdraw advertisements from a particular journal. What will happen will be far greater because action will come through the English Publishers' Association and the Society of Authors. Your entire printing will be snuffed out and you will outrage the opinion of the world as Canada has not, because you will be the first European nation to break in upon the accord of Europe on the subject of intellectual property.
America is moving towards the European position. As late as thirty years ago there was practically no copyright in America. The works of the most eminent writers, such as Dickens and Thackeray, were pirated. It was a world scandal. Then gradually the finer tastes of America were able to assert themselves and the Copyright Act was passed. No educated American looks upon that as final, but that it is simply moving towards the European position. Naturally, perhaps, Canada adopted the same law, which deals not only with Canadian but with American citizens. You will be very different. You will not be moving from a condition of piracy, but towards it, and you will bring upon your head an amount of obloquy of which you have no idea. I do not want to close with what the Senator calls "negation." Ireland is now, intellectually, in the position Edinburgh was at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Gradually Edinburgh became a great centre of publishing and printing. Edinburgh had great intellectual prestige. We have given you intellectual prestige. It will be your fault if you do not make Dublin a great centre of printing, but you will not make it a great centre of printing unless you retain the good-will of the publishers and writers of England and the British Empire.
I desire to say one or two words in reply to what Senator Yeats said so vehemently and earnestly. I deny the assumption that a vote for this amendment is a vote in favour of piracy. The mover of the amendment assumes, rightly or wrongly, that if this amendment were accepted we would still be within the Berne Convention. That is his argument. It was my argument also when I protested on the last occasion. Senator Yeats seems to forget that some piracy is done in other countries. Some of us have been in other countries and we have brought back, in our pockets, little editions of paper-covered works that are really pirated goods. Senator Yeats himself may have transgressed, notwithstanding all his power of protest. As I intend to vote for the amendment, I rose mainly to say that my last desire would be to be a pirate, and while I realise doubt remains that we may still be within the Berne Convention if we accept this amendment, still I shall vote for the amendment.
I just want to say a word or two in answer to the last speaker. I do not intend to destroy the effect of Senator Yeats's argument by going over the ground that he has covered. I want simply to refer to the doubt which Senator Bennett says exists as to whether we can accept this amendment and still remain within the Berne Convention. We have been given the opinion of lawyers in regard to this matter. I have given the considered opinion of the Government's chief legal adviser. Against that we have Senator Dowdall giving an opinion from two people which is not denied. He quoted one phrase that Canada adheres to the Berne Convention. That is so. And secondly, that Canada's adherence to the Berne Convention became effective. That is so. The argument that must be insisted on is this: that if anyone raises the question whether Canada can do this, and retain her place, Canada would have to make up her mind as between two things which are incompatible. We should also have to make up our minds similarly. The point is raised: why has Canada not been put to her election in this matter? That point has been explained by Senator Brown and Senator Yeats. Canada passed her legislation in opposition to the United States of America, which is not inside the Berne Convention, and there is no immediate reason why anybody should object to that, Canada being placed, as she is, next to a non-Berne Convention country.
But here the situation is different. It does not depend upon what Senator Cummins seems to imagine it does, namely, the relative importance or size of the population of the two countries. Senator Cummins said something is good enough for Canada, and surely it ought to be good enough for an insignificant country such as we belong to. But this is not a question of insignificance, it is rather, as Senator Yeats pointed out, that this country is great in letters, and the more important fact, apart from whether she is great or small in the matter of literature she is in the closest proximity to Berne Convention countries. Every country round about us is inside the Berne Convention.
So is Canada.
Yes, Canada is inside the Berne Convention, at this moment, and the argument is that if the point were raised Canada would have to make its choice between remaining in and dropping the printing conditions. We would be put to the same choice, but our choice would be brought about quicker than that of Canada, because there are more cases in which our printing conditions would be found to be a material factor, and there are very few in which it matters in Canada. Another point raised by Senator Cummins was this. He spoke of something being good enough for loyal Canada, and if so, he asked why should it not be good enough for a country like ours. There is no question of loyalty to anything except loyalty to the Berne Convention. We are now definitely outside the Commonwealth Union in this matter. We have nothing to do with the Union heretofore formed of the countries of the British Empire. The only loyalty that is to be observed here is loyalty to the Berne Convention; other matters are completely out of place in this matter.
The real question is this, Canada is still inside the Berne Convention, but according to the Minister's argument we will be out of it if we do the same as Canada.
Amendment put and negatived.