Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jun 1993

Vol. 136 No. 11

Copyright Act, 1963: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to review the Copyright Act, 1963.

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for coming this evening to listen to our deliberations. I thank the House for the opportunity to debate this matter of public concern and hope all Senators will get an opportunity to state their views.

I called for this debate because, in my view, the Copyright Act, 1963, is no longer an acceptable response to copyright as it exists at present. Therefore, I call on the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to give urgent consideration to reforming this Act.

My concern arises from the sheer volume of representations from individuals and organisations that have been made to me on the issue. Publicans, shopkeepers, disco proprietors and many others have made their grave concern known to me regarding the arbitrary copyright charges being imposed without appeal. This is not an unimportant matter because it affects thousands of individual small businesses around the country. Often these small businesses are in a financially vulnerable position and can ill afford the punitive fines being asked of them.

At present these charges are being imposed by the Irish Music Rights Association — commonly known as IMRO — and the Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited — commonly known as PPI. Both organisations engage in the imposition of excessive and arbitrary charges. For example, PPI has over 80 different tariffs. It claims it is a licensing body as defined in section 29 (2) (b) of the Copyright Act, 1963. If this is the case it cannot be too long before manufacturers of glasses, linen, furniture, carpets, etc. will claim royalties for the public use of their products. This may seem an illogical extension of the Copyright Act but as far as I am concerned anything is possible given the current position. The charges asked of small businesses are often outrageous. I know of one nightclub owner who has been issued with a demand for £0.25 million recently.

I wish the House to bear in mind that IMRO and PPI are not small operations. They are powerful international organisations with monopoly positions which they do not hesitate to exploit. At present these organisations are using their considerable muscle to extract more and more royalties from individual small traders without reference to either the viability of the enterprise concerned or the ability to pay these royalties.

IMRO abuse their monopoly in a variety of ways. It takes independent retailers to court to seek injunctions in the case of disagreement; it reserves unto itself, by way of its licensing agreement, the right to raise charges at will and to increase charges retrospectively. This is utterly unacceptable. IMRO is subject to no control whatsoever and makes no reference to viability, ability to pay or even the usage of the music. As far as I am concerned, neither the user of the music nor the creator of the musical works has any real alternative but to work with this monopoly group. I have reservations about monopolies at the best of times, but this is a particularly unhealthy situation.

At present the small traders have no right of appeal. There is a glaring need for some form of an appeal procedure so that small traders have some form of defence. IMRO seems to lack any sense of proportion. By its own words it will demand charges from an old lady who is listening to a radio playing in her living room while working in her corner shop. There is something drastically wrong with the 1963 Act if IMRO can get away with describing this as a public performance and demand payment. At present our small traders are totally defenceless. The need for change is patently obvious.

At this time it is useful to point out the importance of small traders to the economy. They have a pivotal role to play in regional infrastructure, and they offer employment. We are not living in the most prosperous of times and unemployment continues to grow. Small businesses have much to contend with in this inhospitable climate without the additional problem of dealing with the outrageous charges imposed by IMRO and PPI and the heavy handed manner in which they seek to impose these charges.

The need, therefore, to amend the 1963 Copyright Act is clear. There are several proposals I would like to make in this regard. Any changes to the law must address the fact that IMRO and PPI set their charges in an arbitrary manner, and can impose such charges retrospectively. The question of not having an avenue of appeal must be tackled without delay as they are available in other aspects of our legislative framework. Why should our small traders be left exposed in this way? It is unacceptable.

It is bad enough that these organisations operate in a monopoly, but there is also no control over the two agencies and this cannot continue. There is nothing to stop them behaving in their current roughshod manner. This must be tackled with all due haste.

The Minister for Employment and Enterprise, Deputy Quinn has already indicated his intention to review the 1963 Act. I hope at this stage that it is well progressed and has revealed the injustices I have already outlined. I urge the Minister to take action as soon as possible. I know the Minister is committed to retaining and developing employment. However, if IMRO and PPI persist in their current penal campaign, it may result in job losses among our small traders, something we can ill afford.

I second the motion and welcome the opportunity to speak. I am pleased the Minister of State has come to the House to listen to our views on this important matter. I would also like the Copyright Act, 1963, to be re-examined because it has been fairly open in so far as those who operate under the legislation have a free hand to charge what they like. They have gone to extremes and many are now being forced out of business. At least one major company is in the High Court every month and that this is a planned approach by those seeking royalties. Every member of this House recognises that successful artists and musicians are entitled to royalties. Many who give their lives to it — it is like breeding a greyhound — know that they may not succeed; it is an uncertain industry.

Those manufacturing records also want to charge a royalty, it is similar to the manufacturer of the glass I am holding asking for them. It was bought and is being used, but the manufacturer will never get a royalty for it and cannot levy new ones, at thousands of pounds, every year. This area will have to be re-examined as little consideration was given to it in the 1965 Act. It was not a big issue at the time and was not adequately discussed. Both businessmen and public representatives using this music in public are obliged to contribute and they have no control on the amount imposed.

Figures illustrate the scale of these charges. In 1987, one business was charged £3,690 which increased to £12,480 in 1988, these figures were levied without consultation. In 1989, they increased to £24,104; in 1992, to £58,543 and in 1993, to £124,655. The total court claim was for £267,830 which is scandalous and should not be tolerated by any country. I appeal to the Minister of State to consult those penalised by the court. The law is so loose that the justice has no option but to grant the record company an injunction, they come back in a fortnight for an interlocutory injunction, which also must be granted — the person involved must pay their demand or go out of business. Urgent legislation is needed to protect those in this business, whether operating a night-club or a lounge bar, and I call on the Minister of State to urgently examine the situation. There is no protection under current law for those being charged exorbitant sums. It will be serious if a number of business have to close because of this and good sense should prevail. This outdated legislation allows many people to make excessive claims and I am certain the Minister of State will regularise the matter and introduce reasonable charges.

I also support the motion. I welcome the Minister of State to the House, my support is not an usual occurrence, but it is evidence of the broad acceptance on all sides that an unjust situation prevails. Senator McGowan made the case well in relation to the charges levied by PPI. I wish to speak on behalf of the music users also and because of Senator McGowan's contribution and time constraints, I will focus mainly on the situation with regard to IMRO and their charges.

People who play music do not object to paying reasonable royalties, provided they are fair and it is done within a balanced regime. At present, two organisations collect royalties through agencies in Ireland. These organisations were correctly described by Senator Finneran as multinationals. IMRO collects on behalf of the Performing Rights Society in respect of writers and composers. PPI collect on behalf of record companies.

A third royalty organisation has come into existence, the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society and it operates from the same address as IMRO. These organisations collect independently of one another and set their own charges.

In relation to radio and television, each collection agency sets its own charges at whatever level it decides, without regard for the user's ability to pay. If one fails to pay these charges, one faces court proceedings.

In the past, price controls maintained a certain balance. However, since they were removed IMRO, in particular, increased their charges by 2,000 per cent in some cases. The situation in this country is different from that in the UK, where a copyright tribunal functions and deals with appeals. The working men's clubs in the UK appealed a new scale of charges introduced by the Performing Rights Society. The copyright tribunal reached a decision in March 1991 and it directed that the fees should revert to the 1983 level on the grounds that the value of the PRS repertoire was no greater than in 1983. The PRS was obliged to refund the increased charges. Unfortunately, we do not have a similar regime in this country.

The Copyright Act, 1963, was enacted at a time when there were no organisations representing the interests of music users. Copyright organisations had a major input and the legislation reflected this. Following its enactment, copyright organisations began to take people to court. They employed the best legal brains in the Law Library, while defendants were often represented by a local solicitor unfamiliar with the finer points of the law. The silks at the time had a field day, they won case after case. We have created a body of case precedent which works to the disadvantage of music users.

The term "public performance" in relation to television or radio needs to be redefined. It originates from a case in Yorkshire in 1932. A hotel advertised itself as having a radio in each bedroom. However, the court found that the talents of songwriters and composers were being used to attract business to the hotel. Consequently, the court found for the copyright organisations. However, circumstances have changed since 1932 and this matter must be re-examined.

Copyright organisations claim that if a television or radio is visible or audible in a place accessible to the public, a public performance is taking place. Therefore, they may claim royalties. Yet, RTE, Cable TV and local radio stations pay the same organisation over £2.5 million annually to broadcast these programmes. Places affected by this include hotels, public houses, shops, garages, offices, waiting rooms, buses, taxis, hairdressers, workshops, etc.

According to the 1990 annual report of the Performing Rights Society, the parent body of IMRO, £3.249 million in royalties was collected in this country. Collection costs totalled £787,000. Some £2.538 million was sent to their headquarters in London. Despite a detailed analysis of the accounts, I found no record of moneys refunded to Ireland. I will put the Irish contribution in an EC context. Germany contributed £1.28 million, France £4.2 million, Ireland £2.538 million, Italy £2.3 million, The Netherlands approximately £2 million, Spain £1.6 million, Belgium £1.2 million, Denmark £0.75 million, Portugal £71,000 and Greece £2,000 and Luxembourg no return. It is clear that we are paying exorbitant sums to copyright organisations.

The population of the US is approximately 80 times greater than the population of Ireland. There are thousands of radio stations, television stations and record companies in the US. The US returned only £10.6 million to the PRS headquarters, four times greater than our return, despite the fact that our population is one-eightieth of the population of the US. As Senator Finneran said, there is a monopoly. IMRO, PPI and the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society have applied to the Competitions Authority for several derogations from the terms of the Competition Act, 1991. This is an acknowledgment that these organisations are anti-competition in the way they operate.

Often, people are intimidated into signing contracts. Agents are paid 20 per cent commission and their approach is straightforward — sign this contract, pay this bill or face a court injunction. Three such cases came to light this week. Last year a publican in County Tipperary paid £300 to these organisations. This year he received a bill totalling £1,345 and was threatened with a court injunction if he failed to pay. A business in County Cavan paid £443 in 1992; this year it was ordered to pay £2,781. A draper in County Waterford, while waiting for customers, was listening to the radio. An inspector entered the shop and demanded £50 in royalties because he claimed it was a public performance. The draper refused to pay because he claimed the radio was for his benefit. He was subsequently taken to the Circuit Court. The court found against the draper and he now faces court costs of approximately £1,000, in addition to the £50 in royalties.

I look forward to the implementation of a recent EC Directive dealing with unfair terms in consumer contracts. As legislators, we are the guardians of the people who elected us. If legislation is used to the disadvantage of the people, we must change it. If people are threatened, intimidated or exploited in their legitimate businesses we must deal with the problem.

As music users — and I speak on behalf of organisations which represent music users — we have no objection to paying what is due, providing it is paid to a regime which ensures fairness, balance and equity. This motion has received widespread support. Members, through experience in dealing with the public, recognise that a regime providing balance and fairness does not exist.

The purpose of royalties is to reward the talent of composers. I refer to a headline in the Irish Times of 12 April 1993, “U2 may sue to control music royalties”. I will quote the first paragraph of the article which followed: “The rock group U2 may sue the British Performing Rights Society after it failed to concede to an ultimatum this week to allow the band to collect its own live performance royalties.” Paul McGuinness goes on to say several interesting things which, unfortunately, I do not have time to discuss. I am proud of U2, they are our fellow countrymen.

I am proud of Niamh Kavanagh and her success. However, in the days following the Eurovision Song Contest in Millstreet, the Performing Rights Society issued a statement giving credit to the two song writers. Niamh Kavanagh was not mentioned I am sure because she had not yet signed on the dotted line. When U2 were small fry, they signed on the dotted line and signed away their royalties. They now have to go to the UK High Court to try to get them back. There is an injustice on both sides of this divide.

We need to redefine what is meant by a public performance and to end the double charge in relation to radio and television broadcasts. We need to establish an independent body to set the level of charges, and there is no reason for such a body not being self-financing. Finally, we need to establish an effective appeals system. It gives me pleasure, on this rare occasion, to support a Government motion.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to listen to the views expressed in relation to the existing monopoly. I congratulate Senator Finneran for proposing this motion. I imagine that every public representative has received many representations in relation to this issue from small shopkeepers and dancehall and disco owners. Recently, I received figures from the new local radio stations, particularly the local station in my own area of Letterkenny. The situation at present resembles almost a legalised Mafia operation. Previous speakers described the situation well and I will not reiterate their points.

The local radio station in my area, which provides a wide variety of listening material for all age groups, pays over £1,000 a month to the IMRO group. It is costing the station £12,000 a year at present, and I have no doubt it will cost at least £50,000 in three or four years' time. I know artistes who try to survive, make their records and give much satisfaction to the public. They receive nothing back from this group and they are being ripped off. This is why the situation must be examined seriously and why the Copyright Act, 1963, must be changed.

The local radio stations do not have a choice in the matter. They are asked to send to the IMRO group a log of their tapes for two days and a decision is taken in regard to charging them for those two days. The more money the local radio station has, the better the variety we will have and it will not all be music. I ask the Minister of State to take a serious look at the current legislation and the monopoly at present. Those who really suffer at the end of the day, in addition to the artistes, small shopkeepers and lounge bar owners, are the public because if a disco has to pay large amounts of money to IMRO the cost of admission will rise. Small shopkeepers will increase the price of their food to pay for it and the cost of advertising rises, so we all pay at the end of the day. Will the Minister of State take those brief points into consideration?

There is some time left so I will allow Senator Dan Kiely to speak before calling on the Minister of State. Senator Dan Kiely has about seven minutes.

Two minutes will be sufficient. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am concerned about this situation. I have been involved in the entertainment business for many years, in New York and Ireland, and many people came to me in the past about Performing Rights Society money. I live in a rural area where the IMRO may demand money from a shopkeeper because the radio playing in her kitchen can be heard in the shop. There is something seriously wrong with the system. I agree with my colleagues who spoke earlier this evening. If somebody pays once, why do they have to pay again?

I am chairman of Kerry County Council and I have many problems trying to collect rates from business people, now not only must we pay one rate to the local authority, we must also pay the IMRO, the PPIS and the Revenue Commissioners. We are becoming an organisation which collects money for others. This will put small organisations out of business. A man in my constituency is trying to run a music business in his pub and he must pay the IMRO five times what he pays in rates. In return for paying his rates, he demands that we, as a local authority, repair his roads and maintain his sewerage and water systems. These hidden people are on a gravy train——

Parasites.

Yes, parasites. These people have a hidden agenda. I have been involved in the music business for 25 or 30 years in the USA and Ireland. This situation is far more serious than it appears and is killing rural Ireland. A previous speaker quoted £124,000 for one year. The Minister would be delighted to get £124,000 from any business in this country. These people are looking for £124,000 to run themselves, but we are trying to run a country and we must make a decision. These people are cunning and they are undermining society. If a shopowner in rural Ireland opens the kitchen door and allows the music to be heard in his shop, he is told he must pay for the privilege. It is time people opposed that system. The Performing Rights Society once threatened to take me to court when I opposed it.

The new organisation, IMRO, is taking everybody to court, and it has the legal power to do so. We are legislators and it is time we introduced legislation where one charge, paid through the television licence or to the Minister, would suffice. The people in the industry could then solve their own problems. Business people have too may problems — paying rates, taxes, water and other charges. It is time we put this problem in perspective and arranged a single system of payment because this problem can only be solved through a single system.

I thank Senator Finneran and his colleagues for proposing this motion. I have listened carefully to what has been said.

Copyright law in Ireland must, of course, comply with our international commitments in this area, notably the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works and the Rome convention for the protection of performers and producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations. Increasingly, EC legislation is also having an impact on Irish copyright law.

There is at present considerable activity at international level in relation to the copyright system. Very rapid changes in technology are occurring and copyright matters are now becoming very significant in world trade terms. The copyright systems of all countries must adapt to those international developments.

The relevant UN agency — the World Intellectual Property Organisation — is convening later this month two separate meetings of the national experts of all member states. The first is to discuss proposals for a new international agreement on the protection of literary and artistic works and the second proposes a new agreement on the rights of performing artists and phonogram producers.

For the first time, intellectual property issues are included in the proposed new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. While the Uruguay Round of discussions has not yet been finalised, I anticipate that trade related intellectual property rights will be an important part of any new GATT and may give rise to new legislation here.

Under the European Economic Area Agreement, Ireland will be committed to the ratification of the Paris Act of the Berne Convention and to amendment of the Copyright Act to give effect to certain necessary provisions by the end of next year at the latest.

The European Commission, in 1991, published a major work programme on copyright and has proposed a wide and extensive range of measures in this area. A directive on the protection of computer programs and a directive on rental rights, lending and other copyright protection have already been adopted. A common position of the Council has been adopted on a directive on satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission. These measures require changes in Irish copyright law as they become adopted by the Community. Certain consequential changes arising from the EC legislation will also require to be made to the Copyright Act. Other EC proposals are under discussion or in the pipeline.

By its nature the copyright system is international in character and based on certain fundamental principles contained in the international agreements. There are, of course, still significant differences between the copyright laws of the industrialised countries in accordance with the international Conventions as they are applied to the particular circumstances of each state.

We can, I believe, take considerable pride in the achievements abroad of Irish artists who are currently very successful on the international music scene and in other artistic areas. The income earned by these artists is, of course, underpinned by the copyright laws of other countries. These laws are sometimes more stringent than our own.

On the home front, there are practical reasons for the use of collecting societies to collect royalties and distribute them to the rightowners. I am, of course, aware of the systems which exist, the developments which have occurred, and the types of disputes which have arisen in recent years. These are normal features of the international copyright system which could not function in practice without the use of collecting societies. These societies licence the relevant copyright works to users and collect the royalties which form part of the remuneration of the songwriters, composers, record producers and other rightowners.

The Irish Music Rights Organisation is a licensing society for the songwriters, composers, etc.; Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited collects royalties on behalf of record producers, with a special arrangement for performing artists. By the way, there is no legal reason — although there are practical difficulties — in an organisation setting up in competition with IMRO.

Those commercial operators who use music for the entertainment of their customers, whether it be in a disco, hotel or wherever, need to have a central organisation from whom to obtain a licence. If the songwriters and so on had no available representative to grant a licence, then disco operators, for example, could not legally play the music and so could not run their disco. Its a fact of life, therefore, that the rightowners need a collecting society to license their music and collect the royalties, while the music users need a central source from which to obtain a licence.

In these circumstances it is inevitable that disputes will arise between the owners of the copyright and the users of the copyright works. I am fully aware of the arguments in this area covering the amount of the royalty fees, the bases on which the fees are charged and other related issues. There are also complaints about the ways in which the copyright owners enforce their rights.

The Copyright Act, 1963, clearly provides for dispute settlement by the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in such cases. The controller is independent in the exercise of his statutory functions. I am informed, however, that there are 62 cases involving copyright disputes before the controller but most of these are in suspense pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court on a preliminary decision of the controller.

Nevertheless, I have listened carefully to what Senators have said about the need for a review of the Act. It is, in any event, clear that the international and EC developments which I mentioned earlier oblige us to make major amendments to copyright law. Therefore, as I announced in the Dáil on 18 May, I intend to proceed with a formal review of the Act. The difficulties which Senators have raised will, of course, receive particular attention. Any Act that is 30 years old, by virtue of its age, deserves a thorough review.

It will be appreciated that such a major review of copyright law will involve careful analysis of the cultural and economic effects; the extent to which Irish law may deal with certain difficulties within the parameters of international copyright law; the legal obligations which arise under our EC commitments and the need for fairness and effectiveness in resolving disputes.

However, there are a variety of issues which I can assure Senators that I will focus on in this review. In the legal area I will focus on the Supreme Court decision on the PPI/RTÉ notification and an examination of the definition of "a public performance". Under charges I will focus on the amount and method of charging, the frequency of changes in tariffs, a speedier appeals system and whether there is scope for price setting by the Department and/or controller. The area of competition will be examined as will the scope for competition. I have a personal interest in ensuring that free market forces operate fully and fairly in this area which is a view I take of the economy generally.

We will also look at section 52, to see whether this section should be amended. We will carefully examine the general principles involved in copyright law, and finally, I will play careful attention to the effects on small business and on local radio of existing copyright legislation. Senators therefore can be assured that a primary aim in reviewing the legislation is to seek a correct balance between the protection of copyright owners and the use of copyright material. I found today's debate very interesting and informative and I have listened carefully to all the contributions. I will examine the principles involved in those issues and will look carefully at the examples mentioned by Senators. I will conduct the review urgently.

I am interested in this issue because I worked as a musician for several years and I have also managed establishments where live and disco music was played. I understand the difficulties experienced by both sides in regard to this issue. It is important to understand that most artists who perform live music earn very little from it. They earn most of their money from the royalties paid when their recorded performance is played to an audience, so there is a need to protect that area, and that is the function of copyright law. Unfortunately over many years, words such as performance and broadcast have been defined beyond definition by the courts. To give an example, if I sang a song in this House, it could be deemed to be a performance, and Seanad Éireann would have to pay a licence to the relevant organisation.

I have spoken to many people involved in both sides of the business and I understand venues using the copyright material are not adverse to paying a fee. They would like some indication, however, of the amount of fee payable each year. They would also like an independent assessment of that fee to ensure it is just and equitable, and a proper appeal system to help solve disputes between the copyright owner and the copyright user.

I was delighted to hear the Minister mention the issue of competition in his speech. When I was preparing this contribution, I considered asking him to direct the competition authority to investigate each of the organisations involved in collecting royalties here, because there seems to be a monopoly in this area and if that is the case, these organisations are using their dominant position in the market to put people out of business. This has important consequences for live musicians, because if a venue cannot pay the licence fee, it cannot hire bands and musicians become unemployed. A definite solution to this problem is urgently needed.

The Minister will only solve the problem by changing the law completely, with a new definition of the terms used. The nature of intellectual property, covering copyright, trade marks and patents, makes this a very difficult area, and the Minister will need a very precise interpretation of each word used in an Act to cover every possibility, so any legislation introduced could be very legalistic. If, however, an agreement could be negotiated between all interests involved in this issue, a very short Act would cover the whole area, but this approach would involve a lot of work on all sides, and a decision would have to be made as to whether competition will be allowed in this area. This would be the most important element of any agreement, and no conclusion can be reached on this issue until there is a decision in the U2 case against the PRS in the United Kingdom, and until it is known whether the decision in that case can lead to a solution in Ireland. I congratulate the Minister on his presentation so far. I know he is an active worker in reforming legislation in all his Ministries, so I wish him luck in his efforts to reform this area, and hope it can be brought to a speedy resolution.

I welcome the opportunity of speaking in this debate, because the matter before us this evening is of public interest and of particular interest to two groups in our society — to writers and composers, and to vintners. I am delighted the Minister indicated here what he intends to do in relation to the introduction of new legislation, which will be an amendment to the Copyright Act, 1963.

I wish to ensure that composers and songwriters are treated fairly. Equally, it is important that vintners and publicans across the country are treated fairly and that exorbitant charges are not imposed on them for the privilege of broadcasting performances on their premises. The ability of establishments to pay these fees should be examined closely. We all know of cases where large extensions were added to public houses, but because of reduced disposable income and the higher rate of emigration, owners cannot now fill these premises. An assessment of their ability to pay on a square footage level is unfair, and some other method must be used.

The Minister announced in his speech he will focus his review on the legal aspects of this issue, including the Supreme Court decision on the PPI RTÉ notification, and the definition of a public performance. I welcome this and hope the Department will examine the issue extremely closely, so that duplication and triplication of royalty payments can be stopped. It is important in assessing the charges to set up a suitable appeal system supervised by a controller from within the Department.

No group or organisation should be allowed free run throughout the country, without legislation or controls, without complying with international standards and setting standards for ourselves, and in setting those standards recognising the differences that exist between Europe and other parts of the world. These differences also must be catered for — one cannot take an exact copy from some place in Europe because it may not reflect the reality here.

Many people in this country are finding it extremely difficult to survive in business, particularly in rural areas as publicans. The number of charges, for example, rates, ESB bills and licence fees which publicans must pay means that many are paying more in charges than they are able to put aside for themselves. When we are attempting to create more jobs and to divert resources to rural communities it is extremely important that nothing is done to lessen the ability of people to survive in rural communities. I ask the Minister of State to look at this matter.

Will he also examine the situation in relation to composers and writers? I would like them to get a fair crack of the whip and I am sure that the vintners and others who play their music would be happy to pay a fair amount. However, a middle group is taking a substantial slice of the cake while composers and those who are trying to make a living in the pubs are not being treated fairly. I ask the Minister of State in the course of his review to address this matter.

Part of our problem is that we have become much too bureaucratic. Too much money is spent on administration which, in turn, creates more and more administration. The result is that the ordinary people — those who should be the real beneficiaries — benefit least. The Minister of State should base his review on fair play, a sense of natural justice and equity. I hope that when the legislation comes to the House this side will be able to support it. If the Minister of State continues on the road he is pursuing we will not have any difficulty.

I also support the motion. Like many of the Senators who spoke I believe that songwriters are entitled to a fair amount of money for their work. However, with many Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, I have received complaints from music users. They are right to complain, because the vast sums demanded of them for playing music in pubs, nightclubs or other establishments, are totally out of order.

One thing I noticed about demands is that there is not an itemised bill. One simply pays up without knowing to whom the money is going. I would like to know how much goes back to the individual and how the amount is worked out. How does one know what songs are played in a nightclub and how often they are played? I fail to understand how the overall bill is arrived at.

Senator McGowan read a demand for an exorbitant figure to somebody who had got in touch with him. Senator Dan Kiely mentioned rates — which are a pittance in comparison to the costs paid to IMRO. I was surprised by what Senator Howard said regarding the royalties collected in European countries. Most of us have been on holidays in European countries where music is continuously blaring from every café and nightclub and on the street. There is no comparison between the quantity of music played in other countries and in Ireland because of the population difference — this is only a small country. It is extraordinary that we head the league in royalty payments.

We are third.

We are nearly head of the league in paying money to IMRO and the copyright organisations. I was delighted by the Minister of State's announcement that he will quickly review the Copyright Act, 1963. Perhaps he could go a step further. Until the new Copyright Act is introduced and there is fair play, will the Minister make an order or a regulation freezing all payments due and putting on hold all upcoming court cases to collect these moneys? We owe that much to those who are paying through the nose for the use of music.

IMRO as a collector of royalties should be much more accountable, because there is a dispute and because we have documentary evidence of exorbitant bills running into more than £200,000 in some cases. Senator McGowan outlined one case; there are others which are bigger than that.

To resolve the dispute will the Minister of State order immediately that all payments are frozen and any court cases pending postponed until the Copyright Act, 1963, is amended? Otherwise, many will probably have paid excessive amounts while waiting for the Act to be amended. These are the people I would like to protect. Nobody has told me that they do not intend paying; they will pay a reasonable amount, yet people are receiving demands for, say, £6,000 one year, £12,000 the next, £18,000 the following one and so on. There is no reason for such increases.

I again ask the Minister of State to put all outstanding charges on hold until he has investigated all the allegations of exorbitant charges and brought an amendment Bill to the Copyright Act, 1963, before these Houses. I hope the investigation is clear and thorough.

I thank Senators on all sides of the House for supporting the motion. The support is in itself an indication that the different parties have taken an interest in what has been happening on a national basis and taken into consideration that the representations to them require a response. Obviously, the only adequate response is amending legislation. I assure the House that it was not my intention in proposing this motion to deny artistes or composers their copyright royalties. My intention was that an equitable system should be established and that the present system is investigated and shown to be inadequate and irrelevant to the 1990s and the 2000s.

The Minister responded in a positive manner and I thank him for that and for saying that he will review the legislation. The music users will have their opportunity, as an organised group, to make their submissions and give their point of view, as is only proper when legislation is going through the House. In 1963, it was very much a one-sided argument and loopholes have been found that have not been helpful to anybody, including the artists. The group U2 are questioning why, out of a sum of £140 million collected, £26 million was spent on administration. The artists have no more protection under the Copyright Act than the music users. As the Minister said, I have no doubt that all aspects of the European and international agreements must be adhered to and debated. This time we will have a balanced debate with an input from both sides and I hope, in the near future, we will have copyright legislation that protects the interests of everybody involved. Once again, a Chathaoirligh, I thank you for allowing this motion, I thank the Senators who responded and the Minister for his attendance and positive response.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 7.15 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.
Top
Share