Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jun 1998

Vol. 156 No. 2

Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I listened to some of the comments by Opposition Senators in relation to this Bill on the Order of Business. I reiterate what Senator Costello said — this is a short Bill and I will explain why we are introducing it. However, a substantial Bill will be introduced shortly when the House will have an opportunity to discuss it as, indeed, will many people outside this House who have strong views on this legislation.

It is a particular pleasure for me to introduce this short Bill to the House, namely, the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1998. The primary object of this Bill is to make provision for certain changes in copyright law. These changes represent no more than a small first step in a major programme of reform of legislation in the area of copyright and related rights which I will be bringing before the Oireachtas in the coming months.

An effective, modern regime of copyright protection is essential to the economic health of any advanced economy in the information age. Copyright is often thought of mainly in terms of books and other written materials. While the protection of such traditional areas remains important, it is now true to say that copyright is an essential foundation of an increasingly information based commercial system.

Copyright and its related rights are designed to protect the essential economic interests of creators and owners of a very wide range of intellectual assets, including dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, computer programs, databases, sound recordings and broadcasts, as well as rights in live performances. Without a strong regime of legal protection for copyright and related rights the vitality of enterprise and employment growth in all these areas would be hampered or destroyed.

In Ireland, many thousands of jobs and many billions of pounds in exports in businesses of all sizes, depend ultimately on the ability of the owners of intellectual property to rely on the protection of copyright in order to secure their proper return on their labour and investment. Copyright protection is not a means which benefits large multinational businesses at the expense of consumers and of the community as a whole. Bearing that in mind, and given the enormous contribution of both the artistic and the high technology sectors, in particular, to the current success of the economy, Senators will, I am sure, require little convincing of the vital need for a powerful system of protection for copyright and related rights.

I am afraid to say that current copyright legislation is not up to the standard required to support our burgeoning information economy. The last substantial reform of copyright was effected by the Copyright Act, 1963, followed by the limited Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1987. In the area of performers' rights, the Performers' Protection Act, 1968, afforded limited protection to the rights of performers under the criminal law but did little to secure performers' rights in the civil field, at least in any direct sense.

In addition, some secondary legislation has been introduced in the form of regulations under the European Communities' Act with the aim of transposing certain European Communities directives into Irish law. The end result is that Ireland is facing into the information age and the 21st century with copyright legislation designed for the 1950s. I am sure the House will agree that this is clearly unsatisfactory. A copyright system designed for the 1950s cannot serve the needs of the cultural sector or of our modern information and entertainment industries; the more so when the principal Act upon which that system rests was expressed in technology specific terms appropriate to a period before the spread of videos, digital recording and the Internet.

The Government is totally committed to bringing forward without delay a new regime of protection for copyright and related rights in line with the most stringent requirements of the information age. This reform will be achieved for the most part in the forthcoming Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1998, and it would, of course, be inappropriate to discuss the actual content of that measure in the context of the present Bill.

However, it might be useful if I were to indicate some of its principal objectives.

It is my and the Government's intention that the new legislation will provide for a clear, transparent and logical system of protection for copyright and related rights, for performers' property rights and rights in performances, moral rights in copyright works and for intellectual property rights in databases. The Copyright and Related Rights Bill will include clear provisions on the assignment and transmission of rights and on the licensing of rights. The existing provisions on infringement, offences, remedies and penalties will be replaced by a new regime clearly favouring the vindication of their rights by legitimate rights holders and allowing for the imposition of penalties which are realistic by modern standards in relation to offences expressed in clear and comprehensive terms.

As copyright is now at the centre of the exploding information economy, I am ensuring that the forthcoming Copyright and Related Rights Bill will be as "future proof" as possible, thereby permitting us to stay abreast of the rapid pace of technological change. We must bring into copyright and related rights legislation a number of European Union directives relevant to this area. We must also bring Irish law into conformity with obligations incurred under international law on copyright and related rights. I can assure Senators that it will be a specific objective of the Copyright and Related Rights Bill to bring Irish law into full conformity with all the EU directives in question as well as all relevant obligations under international law, including the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, known as TRIPs.

In view of its important and extensive subject matter, it will not surprise Senators that the Copyright and Related Rights Bill is set to be one of the longest and most complex non-consolidation Bills ever to come before the Oireachtas when, in the very near future, the lengthy process of its preparation is completed.

As for the matter at issue, both myself and the Government are very pleased to bring forward the present measure as a means of dealing with certain serious deficiencies in the existing legislation as a matter of urgency and, perhaps more importantly, as an earnest of its determination to achieve comprehensive copyright reform at the earliest possible date.

Turning to the copyright measures included in the present Bill, these may briefly be summarised as follows. The Bill contains two substantive sections. Section 2, which provides a replacement for the present section 26 of the Copyright Act, 1963, is designed principally to secure that a presumption as to the subsistence of copyright in a work which is clearer than that contained in the Copyright Act, 1963, is put in place, that a clear presumption in favour of copyright rightsholders taking civil actions for breach of copyright with the onus on defendants to rebut, is put in place, and that where a copy of a work carries or embodies a statement or mark identifying a party as the author, owner or exclusive licensee in relation to the copyright in that work, the identification thus established shall be presumed correct, with the onus on defendants to rebut.

The right of copyright rightsholders to take civil actions for breach of copyright will always be a vital part of the overall system of protection for copyright rights, and the provisions of section 2 are designed to establish clear presumptions which will facilitate copyright rightsholders in taking such actions.

The right to bring civil actions is only part of the answer to copyright infringement. It must be supplemented with a regime of offences and penalties of sufficient severity to constitute a punishment and a deterrent proportionate to the seriousness of copyright theft as a commercial crime in the context of the modern Irish economy. In consequence of this, section 3 of the present Bill amends section 27 of the 1963 Act, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1987, providing for a regime of penalties in respect of copyright offences very much more severe than that contained in the existing legislation. Specifically, it provides for fines of up to £1,500 per offending item or up to one years' imprisonment, or both, in respect of summary convictions for copyright offences in the District Court, and for fines of up to £100,000 or up to five years' imprisonment, in respect of convictions for copyright offences on indictment in the higher criminal courts.

Senators will note that the Government is proposing an amendment to section 3 to secure that all classes of copyright offence, and not only those involving infringing copies of works, will be fully covered by this new scheme of penalties. Senators will also note that it is not proposed to amend the specification of copyright offences contained in section 27 of the Copyright Act, 1963, in the context of the present Bill. This specification can only be modernised in conjunction with the general modernisation of copyright legislation and will therefore be dealt with in the forthcoming Copyright and Related Rights Bill.

Senators will agree that the present Bill is but a limited measure as far as copyright reform is concerned, but it must be judged in the context of the Government's copyright policy as a whole. Taken in conjunction with recent Garda successes in combating copyright piracy — on which I trust that the force will accept my heartiest congratulations — and with our commitment to urgent and fundamental reform of the copyright system as a whole, the present Bill should be seen as a clear signal of the Government's determination to see that a modern, effective and efficient system of protection is provided for copyright and related rights and that those who would profit unfairly from the fruits of the intellectual labours of others are confronted and defeated.

I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Bill affecting the Patents Act, 1992, and consequential amendments. Senators will be aware from the Order of Business that these amendments are the subject of a procedural motion. While the advice to the Government from the Office of the Attorney General was to the effect that these amendments were appropriate to an intellectual property Bill such as the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1998, it was decided to invoke this somewhat unusual procedure in order to remove any possible doubt as to the power of the House to consider these matters in the context of the present Bill. I want to assure Senators that the Government pursued this procedure in view of the urgency of achieving clarification of the legislative problem, which I will now proceed to outline. I want to record my profound gratitude to this House for its indulgence in confirming that these matters may be taken at this time.

The proposed amendments to the Patents Act, 1992, which relate to the conditions of tenure of office of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, are indeed some way removed from the immediate purpose of the Bill as published. In consequence, it is appropriate that I explain to the House the reason the Government believes it necessary to include them in the present Bill at this advanced stage of its progress through the Oireachtas.

The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks is responsible under statute for the maintenance of registers of patents, trade marks and industrial designs and for certain dispute resolution duties in relation to these registrable rights and to copyright. These responsibilities are exercised through the Patents Office, of which the Controller is head.

The operations of the Patents Office have in recent years been going through a phased modernisation on a broad front. A study of the office by the Centre for Management and Organisation Development of the Department of Finance and, more recently, a business process re-engineering study conducted by outside consultants, have suggested farreaching changes in the organisation of the work of the office. In the legislative field the passage of the Patents Act, 1992, and the Trade Marks Act, 1996, have modernised the systems of rights protection in these areas, with major implications for the work of the Patents Office. Finally, the move of the office to Kilkenny, which is scheduled to take place in August, 1998, will represent a major step towards the establishment of a modernised Patents Office in a new environment.

The various intellectual property rights entrusted by law to the care of the Controller of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs are of the first importance in promoting intellectual productivity, innovation and brand development in the modern Irish economy. Given the nature of the trust discharged by the office of Controller, it is clear that he or she must be independent in the conduct of the day-to-day business of the Patents Office, including the various processes involved in the maintenance of the registers and dispute resolution. However, the Tánaiste, as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, has responsibility as Minister of the Government to ensure that on the strategic level the office is managed to the highest standards and that the service which it supplies is at least as effective and efficient as that supplied by the equivalent services of Ireland's international competitors. This requires that, while independent operationally, the Controller must act under the general superintendence of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

In the course of the various studies of Patents Office operation and, in particular, in the context of administrative difficulties which attended the implementation of the Trade Marks Act, 1996, and which were the subject of some debate in the Dáil in March, 1997, uncertainties emerged regarding the relationship of the office of Controller with the Minister. In particular, it appears that the present controller understands his independence to extend so far as to exclude even general ministerial superintendence in relation to the functions conferred on the office by statute, that is to say, virtually the whole operation of the Patents Office. The relevant legislation currently in force, and in particular section 6 of the Patents Act, 1992, may support the Controller's view of the situation.

The position outlined above is unacceptable to the Tánaiste as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to myself as Minister with direct responsibility for intellectual property matters and to the Government. It is unrealistic, on the grounds that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is actually responsible under statute for providing the administrative resources required by the Patents Office. Under current conditions the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is unable properly to account for, and take responsibility for, the resulting expenditures before the Oireachtas. Also, the absence of any overall ministerial power of supervision leaves the Tánaiste, as Minister, unable effectively to discharge her responsibility to ensure that the very large part of the national system of protection for intellectual property entrusted to the Controller operates effectively and efficiently.

Furthermore, since by law the controller is a civil servant, it appears anomalous to the Government that the person holding the office of Controller should not be clearly subject to that general ministerial superintendence which applies to civil servants in general.

It is now proposed to address the situation by reinstating a legislative provision subjecting the Controller to general ministerial superintendence. This will restore the situation that existed prior to the enactment of the Patents Act, 1992, and will in no way undermine the Controller's responsibility for the day-to-day business of the Patents Office. It is also proposed to clarify certain other matters regarding the tenure in office of a controller which appear insufficiently addressed by existing legislation. These include periods of appointment, the status of the Controller as a civil servant, the basis upon which a Controller may be removed by the Government and the power of the Minister to specify where the headquarters of the Patents Office, its staff and the Controller should be located.

It may be suggested that the insertion of this material in the present Bill, which has already passed all Stages in the Dáil, is precipitate. In this regard, with the move of the Patents Office to Kilkenny due to take place in August 1998, it is in the interests of the good management of the office that any uncertainty on these points be cleared up prior to its relocation. In this context it is expedient to employ an intellectual property Bill which is already before the Oireachtas as a vehicle for the proposed measures.

This Bill, with the amendments proposed, represents an important step in the Government's programme to secure a modern and effective system for the protection of all aspects of intellectual property. The copyright provisions are the first stage of the comprehensive reform of copyright legislation. The proposed amendments to the Patents Act, 1992, will place the office of Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on a clear statutory basis and will make the proper accountability of that vital office to the Oireachtas a reality. Senators may be assured of my and the Government's determination to ensure that all aspects of Irish intellectual property law will be kept under review and updated where and when necessary. Only nations making good provision for the protection of the legitimate interests of work, consumers and investors in the labours of the intellect will flourish in the information age of the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Coghlan

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him for his overview of the Bill. I also thank him for his courtesy to me and other Senators prior to the commencement of business by giving us a briefing on important background information.

This Bill contains a startling provision which should worry us, namely, the provision in section 2 strengthening presumptions in favour of rights holders taking civil actions on foot of alleged copyright infringements. Section 2 states:

(a) Copyright shall be presumed to subsist in a work unless the contrary is proved.

(b).. the plaintiff shall be presumed to be the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright, unless the contrary is proved.

That is a dangerous precedent and bad law.

Senators received a letter from the Vintners' Federation of Ireland stating:

In essence, this Bill sets out to enshrine in law that if any of the copyright collection agencies state that they own the copyright in a particular piece of music, then they own the copyright in that particular music until the contrary can be proven.

This means that they could take any piece of music, traditional, ethnic, classical etc., which is long out of copyright, and simply declare it to be in copyright, or rearrange it and then declare it to be in copyright, and place the onus on the musician, proprietor etc., to prove that they do not own the copyright.

I think you will agree that this would turn law, logic, justice and fairness totally on their respective heads. It has the potential to have extremely serious consequences for music users and for music players throughout the country. It will certainly spell the end of the "session" as we have come to know it in Ireland and in Irish pubs.

We cannot enshrine into Irish law a provision which confers ownership of "a property" on someone who does not own that property. We cannot and must not take away the rights of all our citizens to enjoy music which is theirs to enjoy, simply to boost the commercial profits of those who have no claim or right to its ownership.

This issue is about rights. The rights of our citizens must not be subverted to pander to the greed of a vociferous minority.

I concur with these points. We all know of instances of heavy handedness. A case comes to mind involving a small shopkeeper who listening to the radio, which she might do if at home, received an imposition from a music rights organisation. That is a worry. In law, he who alleges must prove. It is rare to shift the burden of proof to the defence as is proposed in this Bill. Under such a law it would be possible for greedy and unscrupulous people to manufacture bogus claims and, conceivably, get away with them. As the initiators and watchdogs of legislation we would be failing in our duty if we did not question this dubious proposal.

I accept the Minister of State's assertion that this Bill is a forerunner to a comprehensive root and branch reform contained in a proposed Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1998. We accept that the law should provide protection for copyright and related rights but not to the extent of a presumption of rights as proposed which shifts the burden of proof to the defence. No one would wish to take from the creators and owners of intellectual assets and we accept the contribution of the artistic and high technology sectors to the success of the economy.

It is equally accepted that the present legislation is out of date and that the situation as provided for in the Copyright Act, 1963, is unsatisfactory. However, this temporary, ad hoc measure is badly flawed. Should we not wait for the new, more comprehensive measure promised by the Minister of State? He has stated that this new Bill will provide a clear, transparent and logical system for the protection of copyright and related rights, performers, property rights and rights and performances, moral rights, copyright works and intellectual rights and databases.

He states that the Bill will have explicit provisions on the assignment and transmission of rights and the licensing of rights. We all accept the need for the vindication of legitimate rights holders and provisions for the imposition of realistic penalties, and I have no quibble with the penalties proposed by the Minister of State. He stated that the proposed Copyright and Related Rights Bill will bring our law into conformity with all EU directives as well as obligations under international law. This is necessary and timely.

Section 2 of the Bill includes a presumption as to the subsistence of copyright in a work and a presumption in favour of copyright rightsholders taking civil actions for breach of copyright with the onus on the defendants to rebut the charges. This shifts the onus too far and risks putting in place faulty legislation.

Ireland has a proud tradition which has provided us with a great wealth of music, song and dance. However, with modern means and methods there is a danger that much of it could be rifled. It could be digitised by unscrupulous merchants who could subsequently claim copyright and the passage of the Bill will assist in such robbery. We should guard against such possible theft rather than facilitate it.

I welcome much of what the Minister of State said and cannot quibble with his wish to put in place protection in line with the most stringent requirements of the information age. The provisions of the new section 26(2)(a) and (b) to be inserted in the Principal Act are not in line with the most stringent requirements of good law. I have no quibble with the régime of offences and penalties which the Minister of State proposes. The correct approach to the matter would be better covered by the more comprehensive Bill which he said was in the final stages of preparation in the Department.

Regarding the Government amendment, I accept the need as outlined by the Minister of State to bring the matter into line with proper procedure and practice. Dispute resolution duties are in the hands of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and his is a responsible job. I accept that he must be independent in the conduct of the day-to-day business of the office, including the various processes involved in the maintenance of the registers as well as dispute resolution. However, I fail to understand how the position was allowed to come about in the 1992 Act. It would be lovely if any of us could achieve that type of independence from the Government while being a full-time civil servant. I also accept the Minister of State's point regarding the Department and the Minister having to take responsibility and yet not being able to have a proper input without interfering with the independence of the office. None of us who are servants of the State should be able to enjoy the position which seems to have been inadvertently brought about and I support the Minister of State in his wish to restore the situation to that which obtained prior to the enactment of the 1992 Act.

One matter which worries me is the basis upon which a controller could be removed from office. We had a lengthy discussion the other day with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill, and she graciously accepted an important amendment which stated that no member of the board established under the Bill could be removed without stated reasons. In the interests of equity and natural justice, I take it the same would apply in this instance. It is important that no one can be removed from office at the whim of a future Minister. In the interests of good management of the office and to remove any uncertainty, these points should be clarified prior to the relocation of the office to Kilkenny.

Ms Cox

Our country and economy are in the middle of a technological revolution. The information age is here and every day we deal with videos, CDs, PCs, the Internet, the worldwide web, software programmes and databases.

Ireland is behind international standards in copyright protection and this lack of protection will hinder development, both international and indigenous. Copyright protection ensures the rights of the originator, composer, developer, writer or singer, are protected. In Ireland there has been a tendency to think of copyright only in the more traditional sense and it is vital we move forward. Newspaper reports in the past few days have highlighted that up to 65 per cent of software in the Republic is pirated. This represents an annual loss of up to £33.5 million to the information technology sector. Globally, software piracy is estimated to cost companies £8.1 billion per annum. A spokesperson for the Business Software Association said that not one single person has been convicted in the Republic for software piracy. It has been almost impossible to bring a case.

The Bill will remedy that. It will make it easier to prove copyright ownership in civil cases. There are many software companies which are very unhappy with the level of piracy here and I know they will welcome the Bill. Piracy affects jobs and a reduction in this crime to 27 per cent by 2001 will create an estimated 2,773 jobs with a total turnover of up to £438 million. Pirates place in jeopardy the livelihood of all legitimate authors and businesses who make major investments of time and effort in producing software and other products. The Government is committed to defeating pirates in all areas and this Bill is the first step.

The protection of copyright is designed to protect the essential economic interest of creators and owners of a wide range of intellectual assets. Dramatic works, art, music, software programmes, broadcasts and sound recordings were mentioned but without this protection, there will be no growth in these areas. Ordinary individuals and not large multinational companies will be the ones who will suffer. People often do not feel bad about copying a CD and giving it to a friend. They do not feel too bad about sharing a set of computer programmes they bought because they feel it does not affect the big companies. Many people do not believe they are committing a crime and would probably cringe in horror at the thought but that is what copying is. It is a form of stealing from the creators or originators. Put in such bald terms, I believe any decent and honest person would agree with the necessity for fair protection in this area.

This protection has tangible benefits for all concerned: more jobs and investment in Ireland and no more lost opportunities. By that I mean opportunities lost as major companies refuse to operate or base themselves in a country with a poor track record. Such is the seriousness of the situation that Novell, a major network developer and supplier, invested £17,000 last year in a scholarship for an Irish barrister, solicitor or law graduate to go to the United States and complete postgraduate work in the area of US copyright, patent and trade mark law relating to computer software and other emerging technologies. In 1997, when the scholarship was launched, the chief executive officer and chairman of Novell said that while Ireland had successfully attracted multinational investment in software development, it lacked expertise in copyright law. Many other software companies operating in Ireland undoubtedly agree with that opinion, particularly Microsoft and Lotus which are based in Dublin.

Until now, the absence of modern copyright law has been an embarrassment. The Government recognised this and is now taking action to address it. Under the terms of an undertaking given to the United States we are committed to passing this interim measure and to introducing a subsequent substantial Bill which will radically reform the law on copyright protection.

It is essential to create a fair and equitable balance. There is a great and urgent need to protect authors and creators, but the law must not become too stringent and prevent not only authors from creating new works but also people from enjoying the music and dancing which has been part of our heritage for many generations. A number of my colleagues will speak on the music sector and on the performing arts so I will not dwell on those areas.

Every composer, singer or creator of music is entitled to fair protection. However, given our culture and heritage, there are a number of special circumstances with regard to copyrighting works handed down from generation to generation. I also strongly object to a heavy handed approach on the part of musical rights groups demanding money from people who listen to radios in small shops. There is a difference between somebody working in a shop who listens to a radio in the background and playing a radio to attract business. If playing a radio is part of the public relations or the environment of the organisation in which it is played, the relevant fees should be paid. However, if an individual listens to a personal radio as they work, he or she should not have to pay a fee. This society cannot afford to charge fees, even as little as £10 or £15 per year, for that practice. Everybody has a right to listen to their personal radio in the work environment.

I welcome the indications given by the Minister of State with regard to the forthcoming substantive legislation. He has developed a clear understanding of the issues involved and a mature and considered approach to solving the problems in this area. I compliment him and his officials. The new legislation will provide for a clear, transparent and logical system for the protection of copyright and related rights. There will be realistic penalties reflecting the value of the loss of income due to piracy. Given the large and complex area of rights to be addressed in the substantive legislation, the Government is doing what must be done immediately in this legislation. It is giving a clear signal that Ireland will no longer be a soft target market for pirates and copyright criminals in this jurisdiction.

The Minister of State gave a comprehensive outline of the provisions of this Bill. I welcome the change with regard to the onus of proof. Proper, up-to-date penalties are now being put in place and this Bill augurs well for the future in terms of the substantive legislation.

A well equipped pirate can make 100 copies of a video in one hour. It is estimated that at least 3,000 jobs are lost in the video sales sector each year due to lost revenue. However, there is a frightening aspect to this piracy. Children's videos are often copied onto hardcore pornographic videotapes. As a children's video tends to be only an hour long, the rest of the tape, which is generally not wiped, can be left running and unsuspecting children or parents might be confronted with hardcore pornography after the Disneyworld pirated video is finished. The message is simple — do not buy pirated videotapes, CDs or recordings.

Last year the Garda Síochána seized £100,000 worth of pirated goods in the two months before Christmas. As the Minister of State said, the Garda have been extremely successful in their fight against crime in this area and I echo his congratulations to the force. This success, coupled with the provisions in this Bill and the substantive Bill which will be published shortly, demonstrates the Government's commitment to addressing this issue forcefully, effectively and with determination to succeed and to protect the right of a person to his or her intellectual property.

The proposed changes with regard to the Patents Office are essential to ensure that the Minister will have not only responsibility in this area but will also have the power to discharge his or her duties effectively. The world is changing rapidly and the information revolution has brought various challenges. People in the music, dramatic and broadcasting sectors need and deserve adequate protection. This Bill is the first step in the process of according that protection. We must protect these industries and allow them to flourish and grow. Growth and economic success cannot be let slip from our grasp. The provisions in this legislation will ensure that the rights of creators and authors are protected and will guarantee their continued progress into the new millennium.

Mr. Quinn

I agree with Senator Cox that Irish people have a traditional view of copyright law. I, too, had a traditional view of copyright and, although I frequently heard Senator Mooney speak about the need to introduce legislation with regard to intellectual property, I did not realise that need. I visited the Far East a couple of weeks ago and met a person there who told me that in Indonesia software, for which he had paid £500 a month earlier in Ireland, was being sold for £5. That was when I began to realise the need for legislation in this area.

This is, as it were, a finger in the dyke Bill, a stopgap measure before the substantive Bill is published later this year. I welcome the fact that we are fulfilling our obligation to pass this legislation even if it is being done under pressure. I hope the Minister of State will ensure there is no delay in the introduction of the substantive legislation. We will give him every support in that regard. The Patents Office is due to be relocated to Kilkenny in August so it is important that no delay occurs. It is difficult to maintain standards if there are no facilities to so do.

Much scorn was expressed following the publication of this stopgap Bill about Ireland being forced to act under threat of international litigation. The process beginning today is really an occasion of national shame and I do not mean that with regard to the Minister of State's efforts. The situation in which we find ourselves is shameful. I hope we will draw something positive from it by learning from it and acting differently in the future.

We must ask why copyright law was allowed to become so out-of-date over the past 35 years. It was on no political party's list of priorities. The only opinions on the matter were voiced by Senator Cassidy and Senator Mooney and they were not given a hearing. It is not the fault of any single Government; successive Governments are to blame for ignoring this issue even in the face of developing trends in the EU and throughout the world. The reason is that our view of the economy for the last 40 years was dominated by a mindset which saw manufacturing as the only game in town and that was where jobs were created.

We covered this topic during the debate on the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill, 1998. The service industry has not been regarded as a thing of the future or something to be valued. We now claim that that mindset has changed and we fully appreciate the potential of services, particularly those knowledge based services that will drive the information society referred to by Senator Cox.

We aspire to being a major player in the information society and we are right to have that aspiration. Merely having hopes and aspirations is not enough. We must work to make our aspirations a reality. In the past we have produced rhetoric and in recent months much hot air has been blown about Ireland's place in the information society. In this Bill we catch a glimpse of the yawning gap between rhetoric and the Ireland we must create if we are to compete in the information age. This Bill is an indictment of the old mindset which did not recognise change and which is still very much alive. That mindset will stymie our progress unless we are determined to kill it off. It will not die easily and we must work very hard to see that it does.

The bedrock of the information society is knowledge and the ability to access it. The commercial manifestation of that knowledge is intellectual property. We must find a way to achieve the standards which the world requires of us. We need copyright legislation for the same reason we need patent legislation. We are tackling both these questions and I hope we have done so in time.

We regulate these property rights in order to encourage innovation in Ireland. I am not sure if that necessity is recognised. My experience on the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine teaches me that we must change our mindset with regard to innovation, not just in this area but in every area of economic activity.

The purpose of copyright legislation is not to make a small number of people rich but to encourage creative people to innovate so that we can benefit from their innovations. If we are serious about becoming a major player in the information society we must create an environment in which creativity is properly rewarded whether it takes place in the traditional media or in the new electronic media where intellectual property rights are considerably more difficult to protect. The Minister of State has given us an inkling of how difficult it is to protect them. The new world of intellectual property is not only an electronic one. Its definition is global. There will always be places where pirates sail the seas and cowboys roam the range. Ireland must be a place where zero tolerance is shown to those pirates and cowboys. This Bill is an attempt to take the first steps in that direction. Sadly, as the need for this legislation shows, we are closer to the mindset of the pirates and cowboys than of the pathfinder in the information society. We must change things very quickly because time is not on our side.

In the new information age intellectual property is not a sideshow. It will be the major repository of wealth. Although it is intangible it will become economically more significant in the next century than the immovable property that has traditionally served as a symbol of wealth in Ireland. We must change our views about the nature of property and about what it will take to succeed in the information age. There are encouraging signs of our ability to become a major player in the information society but we must be in the cockpit of innovation and creativity, driving it from the front. We should be leading developments in legislation for intellectual property and not lagging behind as we have been doing until now.

I accept the Government's assurance that it is taking this matter seriously. However, it is a little late for promises. We must suspend judgment on the seriousness of the Government's intentions until we see the promised principal legislation. The Minister has promised that he will move quickly and this is to be welcomed. I hope the Minister of State in his response will give us a date for his return to the House with substantive legislation on this matter.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment him, his Department and the Government on bringing forward this legislation. Ireland has been forced to introduce this legislation, but it may allay the concerns of Senator Quinn to know that I have been assured that more substantive legislation will come before the House before the end of the year. That Bill will supersede the mammoth Banks Bill which had more than 300 sections. The proposed Bill will have more than 500 sections and will be the most comprehensive and complex legislation since the foundation of the State. Such is the commitment of the Government to this important matter.

The background to the Bill is a World Trade Organisation agreement, the Trade — Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, which Ireland, through our membership of the European Union, entered into as part of the GATT negotiations. The initiative for this has come from the United States where many of the developments in software and modern technology have taken place. Consequently the United States Government came under pressure from its domestic manufacturing organisations to do something about the growing piracy of intellectual property especially in the software area. It is for that reason that this legislation has been introduced.

The United States have taken this matter so seriously that the US trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, announced earlier this year that, under their Special 301 provisions of the US Trade Act of 1974, they were continuing to monitor the development of protective legislation worldwide and had placed 15 of their trading partners on the Special 301 priority list. I am glad Ireland was not among those 15. However, a further 32 trading partners were placed on what the Americans referred to as a watch list, conducting out of cycle reviews of a number of other specified countries. Ireland is included on this list, primarily because, in 1997, the United States initiated dispute settlement proceedings against Ireland as it had not amended its copyright law to comply with the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement obligations. Developed country obligations under the agreement came into effect in January 1996.

Examples of inconsistencies in Ireland include the absence of a rental right for sound recordings, no anti-bootlegging provisions and very low criminal penalties which fail to deter piracy — all of which have contributed to high levels of piracy. The Americans said they are pleased Ireland has committed itself to accelerating work on a new copyright law, to which the Minister referred, and to expedite legislation addressing two pressing enforcement issues. They look forward to the enactment of a copyright law consistent with the agreement and additional progress and enforcement in 1998. The Minister promised that we will be removed from the watch list before 1998 and we will be restored to the favour of our friends in the United States.

Why does so much controversy surround Ireland's unenviable inability to crack down on piracy? Is it such a big deal? It is a very big deal — and not just in relation to software piracy. For example, at Christmas there are street traders in all the main shopping areas. I wish to emphasise that not all street traders are criminal in intent or in execution. They are a colourful and valid enhancement of many towns and cities, particularly Dublin — Henry Street would not be the same on Christmas Eve without street traders. However, lurking behind that happy facade are unscrupulous dealers who supply equally unscrupulous street traders with counterfeit products, which include Manchester United jerseys and pirate video and music cassettes.

The industry is worth millions. Last year more than 50 trade mark protection actions were initiated by Manchester United on goods ranging from replica kits to confectionery. As Senator Quinn saw in his visits to the Far East, luxury items are mainly imported from outside the EU. Music and video piracy is carried out at home, often using crude and inexpensive technology because quality is not a priority for pirates. In Dublin last Christmas, gardaí discovered a £35,000 haul which included the latest Spice Girls and Boyzone hits along with consignments of Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, Calvin Klein, Adidas, Levi and other designer fakes.

It is not those who sell goods from suitcases on Henry Street who are making a great deal of money but those further down the line who are providing them with the merchandise. It is estimated that their turnover could amount to £40,000 per day. Worldwide music piracy is a $5 billion industry. In Ireland it is estimated that the music industry is losing up to £12 million and that piracy constitutes 16 per cent of the Irish music market — which is more than any of the market leaders such as Sony, CBS, EMI or Warner Brothers.

Senator Cox referred to £100,000 worth of pirate goods found by the gardaí. Like the Minister and other Members, I congratulate the anti-racketeering section of the Garda Fraud Squad who have done outstanding work against an Everest of difficulties. In that regard, this legislation is necessary. I am pleased that the penalties imposed will help to deter further piracy in this area. However, the Minister might consider the introduction of mandatory prison sentences for more serious offences. I appreciate that, in the case of summary conviction, it is a matter for juries to decide and that there is an option for a fine and/or imprisonment, which can be up to five years.

I wish to raise a matter which Senator Ó Murchú, as stiúiritheoir of a national cultural organisation primarily involved in the promotion of Irish music, will go into in more detail. I wish to refute any suggestion that the Irish Music Rights Organisation is targeting traditional music or musicians. I declare a vested interest as I am a music publisher and a member of IMRO. However, I acknowledge that traditional music, to use the generic term, has a special and unique place in Irish life. Despite the correspondence that the Vintners Association of Ireland has entered into with many Members of both Houses, it is disingenuous of it, in the light of agreements which it concluded with IMRO in relation to the collection of royalties, to suggest that traditional music is under threat as a result of this legislation.

That agreement defines traditional music which is public domain as opposed to copyright music. It states "Irish traditional music in the public domain is exempt from the tariff imposed by the Irish Music Rights Organisation. Playing of copyright music will incur the full tariff and where there is a dispute as to whether the music at the session or venue is Irish traditional music, the matter can be referred to the arbitration committee".

IMRO has every right to collect royalties on copyright music on behalf of its members. It is not a commercial organisation but is owned by the members who are writers and publishers. It is the right of IMRO to look after the interests of its members. I am sure Senator Ó Murchú and others would be the first to admit that, no matter what type of music session or where it is, they cannot claim that 100 per cent of musical output from those musicians, professional or not, is non-copyright.

The music of Sharon Shannon and Liam Óg Ó Floinn, as well as that of the Riverdance phenomenon is also traditional music. These people not only play traditional music in the public domain but also compose music in the traditional style, which is copyright music and they are fully entitled to do that. This Bill should not be used to frighten the Irish traditional music sector. I welcome the initiative and wish the Minister well. I look forward to the more substantive legislation later this year.

Mr. Gallagher

I am glad to follow Senator Mooney as his contribution, as a member of IMRO, gives us a flavour of the issues which will need to be examined in detail when the more substantive Bill comes before the House later this year. I look forward to participating in that debate. I have no problem with the policy of IMRO and the agreement. I am aware of IMRO's contribution to the development of music and music awareness in many parts of the country. In Offaly this is done through the adult education service of the VEC, while IMRO has been involved through another organisation in supporting a programme of musical appreciation and awareness. I am not attacking in any way the right of those who compose and publish music to the fruits of their efforts.

The debate has shown that the difficulty revolves around the definition of copyright, something the Bill does not seek to address. On the face of it there is something by way of a written agreement. The difficulty arises in its application and I am satisfied that publicans and others have been subjected to approaches which were improper, untoward and sometimes amount to almost a demand for money with menaces.

In the past month I spoke with a general practitioner who had a very busy family practice attended by many mothers with young children. As in all doctor's surgeries, they have to wait on occasion for a considerable time and for the convenience of parents and their children the doctor installed a portable television in the waiting room, tuned mostly to the cartoon channel. About three weeks after its installation a representative of one performing rights organisation arrived and demanded a fee of £120. While the doctor had not a financial problem in paying, he did not see why as a matter of principle he should pay as it did not constitute a performance, a broadcast of MTV or anything else. It was simply provided for the comfort of his patients. He approached his medical organisation which advised him to pay and said it was not worth taking on the performing rights organisation as the law was on its side.

My fear concerns the point raised very ably by Senator Coghlan, namely, the further weighting of the law proposed in the Bill in favour of the presumed copyright owner. Deputy Rabbitte addressed this issue at length in the Dáil. The Bill changes a fundamental principle of law, namely, the putting of the burden of proof on the plaintiff rather than the defendant. While I appreciate the necessity and desirability of this in respect of, for example, piracy of computer software, we must be careful in applying it to publicans, shopkeepers, hairdressers and doctors. It is an issue we will have to return to later.

I have discussed the issue about which Senator Ó Murchú and his colleagues are concerned with a number of people, including the former Minister, Deputy Michael Higgins. We will have to quickly apply our minds to the issue. A performance cannot be simply isolated into a traditional or copyright presentation. However, where live music, including a session, is predominantly traditional in nature, there can be no case for anybody looking for money. I await with interest Senator Ó Murchú's contribution arising from his experience. We will have to return to this issue later in the year.

I support and welcome the amendment introduced by the Minister regarding increasing the responsibility and accountability of the Minister for the Patents Office. Members of both Houses have been critical of the diminution of accountability which has arisen in every Department in recent years through the transferring of responsibility for various issues to agencies, semi-State bodies and regulators. The amendment, which seeks the transfer of responsibility and accountability back to the Department, is a welcome change which goes against the run of play and I fully support it.

I agree with previous speakers who have pointed out that this is simply a stopgap measure. It was described by my colleague, Deputy Broughan, as a sticking plaster measure. We have been told it is being brought forward as a result of a threat of legal action by the World Trade Organisation, mainly under pressure from the United States. It was an embarrassment for the country when the US Government publicly threatened to take legal action against us last year because of our failure to meet the overall copyright standards under the TRIPs agreement. This was a major international embarrassment for a country which depends so much on inward investment in the IT sector in terms of hardware but especially software. We must support this limited Bill if it goes some way towards lifting that embarrassment, despite our general reservations. We will have a chance to return to the issues in the substantive Bill we are anticipating.

The Minister should learn lessons from the highly documented cases in the US, Britain and Germany where courts have applied law to the Internet. Last month's judgment by a German court involving the online service of CompuServe will have wide reaching implications for responsibility for material on the Internet. In this case it was found the online service was responsible for all material on the sites it serviced.

Notwithstanding this amending legislation, our copyright laws are so outdated they are wide open to interpretation and doubt and leave us light years behind our EU and US counterparts. I would not be surprised if similar litigation arose in our courts before too long. I understand the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1998, runs to over 400 sections. It is required under an EU directive and must urgently be brought forward. I would welcome an indication from the Minister of the proposed timetable for the introduction of the Bill and the measures which will be put in place to discuss it with Members of the Houses in advance of its publication. The proposed Bill is the most important legislation in determining our ability to deal effectively with the future of the world in the information society. Jobs and livelihoods depend on the ability of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to bring forward this legislation on copyright.

The 1963 Act, which we are amending, simply allows the owner of copyright in literary, musical and artistic works to control the manner in which such work is copied and used. However, with the existence of so many websites and the ease with which an individual can set up a site, our copyright law has become weak and, in many cases, irrelevant. In furnishing a website with information, it is often easier to copy information from publications and ignore the attached copyright rather than commission the writing of new information. The practice of copying information from books and magazines without permission from the owner of the material is widespread. Unless we provide adequate legislation to cover copyright on the Internet, we could be left with a situation whereby a person who provides technical support on the Internet to a website owner may become liable for breaches of copyright.

In the debate in the Dáil on this issue, my colleague, Deputy Broughan, proposed a number of technical or drafting amendments and stated that his substantive views on the issue would be put forward when the further Bill is produced later in the year. I concur with Deputy Broughan's views. When he proposed the amendments the Minister gave an undertaking to consider them and report back during the Seanad debate. I have tabled similar amendments with a view to hearing the Minister's comments on them and hope that on Committee Stage he will accommodate them.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus gabhaim buíochas leis as ucht a chinealtas agus an cabhair phearsanta a chuir sé ar fáil maidir leis an mBille. I welcome the Minister and thank him for his kindness and accessibility to me personally in regard to concerns I wish to raise on behalf of many people throughout the country concerning copyright and relevant legislation. In the urgency to fulfil our international obligations regarding copyright law, I hope that we will have the opportunity to alert ourselves to inherent dangers in copyright law.

A Queen of England once decreed that all pipers and harpists, and by extension all musicians, singers and dancers, were to be hanged from the nearest tree. The more flippant among us might suggest the lady had an aversion to Irish music, but it is a matter of historical record that she had a more self-serving and sinister motive. Irish music, language and other elements of our culture are seen as distinctive characteristics of nationhood. Those who wished to coerce us then realised that in order to get us to act as loyal citizens of the Crown, those characteristics of nationhood would have to be removed. I am not suggesting that the Minister of State wishes to hang a piper from the nearest tree, but it is conceivable that unless we put down some markers the Leitrim flute player, the Clare concertina player, the Dublin piper and many others could face a five year jail sentence or a £100,000 fine.

That may seem an exaggerated scenario, but it is not. Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, a national festival which has been promoting Irish music successfully for more than half a century, received a demand from IMRO for the music played there. I understand that IMRO has since suggested that this is an error, but I have seen no apology or retraction. One of the mitigating factors put forward for the demand was that among the 170,000 people who attended the fleadh last year in Ballina, some musician might have played a copyrighted tune among the hundreds of thousands of tunes played. The Fleadh Cheoil was asked to prove that that did not happen.

Let us take this one step further. The cultural centre in Ennis, Cois na hAbhna, was set up specifically with the mandate to promote only Irish traditional music. It received a demand, not for any specific piece of music, but because at some unproven time someone might have played a copyrighted tune. That is no exception. Dún na Sí in Moate, County Westmeath, is a small cultural centre in a small community that works on a voluntary basis to promote the national characteristics which a Queen of England wished to eliminate. It too received a demand. I am told that those were errors, but they underline the intent of IMRO. If that intent is bolstered by legislation, it will put pressure on Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and thousands of musicians. There are 600 Irish traditional music classes being taught in Ireland; if a teacher inadvertently includes one tune which is copyrighted, that class and thousands like it could receive a demand from IMRO bolstered by legislation passed by the Oireachtas.

I do not doubt we are dealing with a sympathetic Minister of State. How could he be otherwise, given his background and whence he comes? However, we are not dealing with tunes by unknown composers, as many composers are known. Those composers bequeathed their music to the nation in a spirit of generosity to be passed from generation to generation. What would happen if the great grandnephew or cousin six times removed of such a composer claims possession of a piece of music and decides to copyright it? We should bear in mind that those tunes have been part of the corpus of Irish traditional music for decades, if not centuries. Those tunes are part of our folklore and are played without any thought of people gaining remuneration from them. What will happen if musicians continue to play tunes claimed by relatives of the composers?

I have no difficulty supporting the main thrust of the Bill, but we should remove any possibility such as I have outlined. The public house, like the creamery, the post office or the church, is a focus of community life. We know that most publicans are exceptionally decent people. The Minister of State knows Doolin, in County Clare.

Mr. T. Kitt

I have played there.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

The Minister of State knows that there are pubs there where only traditional music is played. If those pubs receive demands, they will have to prove that the music being played there is traditional and has not been inherited by a composer's relative, irrespective of what the composer's original intention was. This is a minefield. Given our regard for artists and composers, I would not like Senator Tom Fitzgerald to have to justify opportunities given to cultural predators when he goes back to Dingle. Those predators will try to do what the composers never intended; those composers' craft was enhanced by the music they received free of charge from previous generations.

This is not just an Irish concern. I attended a recent conference on world culture in Stockholm recently. A section of that conference was devoted to copyrighting traditional music throughout the world. Huge concern was expressed by the affected countries, which pointed out that at previous UNESCO conferences they had tried to enshrine protection for native music in world legislation.

The British and American representatives at previous conferences were asked for comments, but both replied that they had been instructed by their Governments to shut up and smile. However, they went back to their Governments for instructions once they realised the seriousness of other countries' attitudes, such as 29 African countries which realised that their music had been pirated by America, which was in turn claiming copyright for indigenous Third World music. They returned to the conference with the instruction to say: "If any international legislation deprives us of moneys we are now receiving, we will hold those countries responsible for that loss." Ireland must be at the forefront in this matter because we have the strongest traditional music lore in the world. Our surveys show it is the most popular music among all age groups, social classes and geographic locations. I am not saying that; these are the findings of the Arts Council's survey which has been published under audiences, amateurs and acquisitions title. That is our music. It is an emotive issue and it is vital that Ireland is seen to be at the fore in international developments.

I have waited a long time for the opportunity to speak on this issue. I do not criticise the Bill as it stands but ask the Minister to ensure that in the substantial Bill it is made clear that the corpus of traditional music will be left as it is and that we will not have predators going to cultural centres or to fleadh cheoil around the country endeavouring to get money for music which had been passed down from generation to generation. We are lucky to have this Minister and, indeed, all politicians because they are products of and reflect their communities. I have no doubt that we as legislators, while taking cognisance of the needs of those who make a career of music or any art form, will also take cognisance of the majority of the people who love to play Irish music which has enhanced our image throughout the world.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

Copyright is the foundation of the modern economic process. We are talking about the protection of intellectual property. This is the new oil or gold which is driving the economic and social progress of western Europe, in particular. I tend to think of copyright as protecting music and art, including design, but in recent years with the growth of software we now find that copyright protection or the drive to protect copyright is coming from the large multinationals. Microsoft is one of the leading lights in the development of software. It is ironic that we are trying to protect the rights of such companies while across the Atlantic, the American Government is taking action against the Mr. Bill Gateses of this world who are well able to protect themselves. The American Government's case is that these people are abusing copyright laws and are trying to drive competitors out of business.

The Minister of State, who comes from a historic family politically speaking and from the teaching profession, will be interested to know how copyright developed in Ireland. Copyright dates back to St. Colmcille who, when one looks into his background, was not quite as saintly as we would like to believe. Finian, an abbot in a monastery in Dromin, County Louth, had a particularly attractive book of psalms which Colmcille secretly copied. Finian got quite upset about it and accused Colmcille of breaking the law. Naturally, Colmcille said he had broken no law and claimed the copy as his own. The matter went to the High King, Diarmuid, a namesake of mine, who decided that to every cow its calf and to every book its copy. This practice has continued to the present day.

I am delighted to hear this Bill is only an interim measure and that a root and branch review of copyright law is under way. I look forward to that; I gather it will run to hundreds of pages. Our standard of education is high and we depend very much on the intellectual ability of ourselves and our children. I give a guarded welcome to the Bill; I emphasise the word "guarded" because the business of copyright is wider than just software and reaches into nearly everyone's life. I look forward to the Minister of State's return with a full and detailed copyright Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I thank my colleague, Senator Fitzpatrick. Having shared an office with him, I was very much aware of his knowledge of Irish history which he has proved once again. I alluded to St. Colmcille in the other Chamber and I appreciate the Senator's comments. I thank all Senators for a well informed and interesting debate. I listened to every word. Ministers and Ministers of State can be accused of being in the House but our minds being elsewhere during a debate. This is an important debate on a significant economic, social and cultural issue and there has been a strong emphasis on culture.

Senator Coghlan, Senator Gallagher and others referred to presumption in civil cases. The purpose of section 2 is to effect a major shift in the evidential burden borne by the parties in civil actions for copyright infringement from the plaintiff to the defendant. This change is needed because, in many cases, the fact that defendants can oblige plaintiffs to prove certain points even where they may be very obvious — such as whether copyright even subsists in a song — makes it impossibly burdensome for legitimate copyright rightsholders. That was the problem so we had to include this provision.

In this case, it makes it impossible for legitimate copyright rightsholders to obtain civil relief against infringers. In practice, it should be a fairly simple matter for a bona fide defendant to rebut the presumptions concerned. In consequence, I do not believe an unfair burden will be imposed on defendants by this change or that the taking of vexatious or unmeritorious breach of copyright actions will be encouraged. Having carefully considered the matter, the Office of the Attorney General finds no legal or constitutional impediment to this change.

Senators Mooney, Ó Murchú, Gallagher and others understandably concentrated on traditional music which has been a key element of this debate. I, like everyone here, am a lover of music and traditional music. For that reason, I was particularly interested in this aspect of the debate. My advice is that only original works with authors are eligible for copyright protection. It follows that the use of music which is traditional in the true sense cannot be restricted by copyright since it will have no author in the usual sense nor will it be possible to apply tests of originality to it.

Copyright may attach to traditional airs in certain limited circumstances. The principal of these are original arrangements of traditional music and respective sound recordings of such music. In no such case should copyright in the pure traditional musical resource be captured. The copyright involved will relate to the arrangements or sound recording itself only.

Senators will have gathered from my comments that I will be most concerned at any suggestion that the provisions of copyright law, whether contained in this Bill or otherwise, might deprive Irish people of the right to make free use of music from their folk tradition in original form. My advice is that this should not occur. However, it is my intention to monitor this matter very carefully in the period leading up to the enactment of the Copyright and Related Rights Bill in the course of which I will communicate my concerns to the relevant copyright collection societies, such as the Irish Music Rights Organisation.

Senators may be assured that, if I find that the proper relationship between traditional music and copyright law is not being maintained, I will consider appropriate remedial action in the context of the Copyright and Related Rights Bill.

This is a first step Bill which has been referred to as a breakout one from the substantive Bill. It is very necessary as it gives us time to consult with people and listen to them. I have taken careful note of the views expressed in the House today. This Bill will give us time, in the context of the substantive Bill, to ensure we provide safeguards against the kind of concerns raised.

In regard to the vigorous methods employed by some copyright collection agencies such as IMRO, these organisations have the right and duty to collect royalties on their members' behalf where these are due. I share the concerns raised by Senator Cox and others that such organisations would not exceed their remits and I intend to meet some of the principal ones to discuss this matter, among others, in the near future. I am also exploring the possibility of including a provision for the registration of copyright collecting societies in the forthcoming Copyright and Related Rights Bill with a view to introducing a greater degree of transparency into their activities.

The Copyright and Related Rights Bill is a very comprehensive one which contains in excess of 400 heads. We will have to spend a great deal of time on it prior to its publication but I have already put in train opportunities to meet with various organisations involved in this area. I am anxious to seek clarification on many of the issues which have been raised here today.

Senator Coghlan and others raised the issue of the Controller and the Patents Office. The personal terms of service, including rights to remuneration, superannuation and period of service, of the current Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks will not be affected by these amendments. This is secured by paragraph (d) to the proposed new section 97 (1) of the Patents Act, 1992. There is no intention, nor could there be, to deprive the current controller of the benefit of the personal terms he currently enjoys. Of course, it is intended that the amendments affecting the general legislative environment of the office of Controller should have effect in respect of the tenure of that office from the time the relevant provisions commence. The Government considers the clarifications effected by these amendments necessary to secure the effective, efficient and accountable operation of the Patents Office into the future. The clarifications relate to the office of the Controller rather than the personal position of any individual holding that office. In this regard I should point out that amendment No. 5, which seeks to make the Controller subject to general ministerial superintendence and direction in the discharge of his functions, merely reinstates a feature of the tenure of the office to which the present Controller was subject prior to the enactment of the Patents Act, 1992. I had an opportunity to speak to the spokespersons prior to coming into the House and thank them for their co-operation in this matter.

I assure Senators that my Department and the Patents Office have been co-operating to develop and implement a plan designed to ensure the Patents Office in Kilkenny will offer an effective and efficient service to consumers.

Senators Quinn, Mooney and others referred to the TRIPs agreement and the reasons for introducing the Bill. Senators may wish to note that contacts between the US trade authorities and my Department concerning the level of Ireland's compliance with international law in the field of copyright and related rights and, in particular, our level of compliance with the trade related aspects of intellectual property agreement, TRIPs, formed the background to the introduction of the Bill. However, on taking office, I was very conscious of the need to move on this issue.

Discussions were held on this issue over a one year period during the course of which the US trade authorities made clear their unhappiness that Ireland, an advanced industrial country and EU member, had in their opinion fallen far short of putting in place a system of protection for copyright and related rights which met the standards required by the TRIPs agreement, standards which must be observed on the broadest possible geographical basis if the development of intellectual property is to flourish on a worldwide basis. The terms of the agreement in question are general so that the question of whether particular details of a particular country's copyright law are in compliance with the agreement could be open to debate. We would not necessarily accept the criticism of Ireland's level of TRIPs compliance on all points. What is beyond doubt, however, is that, taken as a whole, Irish copyright legislation formulated 30 years ago and more is not capable of meeting the overall standard of protection required by modern intellectual property treaties, such as the TRIPs, which are geared towards the information age. Senator Cox eloquently explained the need to update this legislation.

Securing an effective and efficient regime of copyright protection fully compliant with the TRIPs standards is a specific objective of the forthcoming Copyright and Related Rights Bill. The Government is convinced that only a comprehensive reform measure, along the lines of that Bill, is truly capable of bringing Irish copyright and related rights law fully into line with our international obligations. The Government is pleased to introduce the present Bill, limited though it is, both as a token of its serious attempt to achieve fundamental modernisation of Irish copyright law at the earliest possible date and as a measure which will effect a valuable improvement to the regime of Irish copyright protection in its own right in the short term. The Government is pleased that, on the basis of its undertaking to introduce the current Bill and the Copyright and Related Rights Bill at the earliest practicable date, a better understanding has now been established between the Irish and US trade authorities which has allowed the latter to refrain from proceedings against Ireland under WTO dispute resolution procedures. We can competently assure Irish copyright rightsholders as well as our trading partners that Irish copyright and related rights law will shortly represent a leading model as we enter the 21st century. Apart from the pressure we are under in this regard, I welcome the fact we are having this debate which will hopefully be publicised as it is important that people understand the importance of this issue and the problem of piracy.

In regard to keeping our intellectual property rights up to date, successive Governments must be held responsible for the somewhat decrepit conditions of our intellectual property law. Great strides have been made through the enactment of the Patents Act, 1992 and the Trade Marks Act, 1996, by my predecessor. The Copyright and Related Rights Bill will represent another giant step in the modernisation of Irish intellectual property law. Furthermore, Senators may be assured of the Government's determination to provide the resources necessary to keep our law up to date in this area in the future. Additional staff have already been assigned to the intellectual property unit of my Department with this in mind. On taking office I identified this area, which was not adequately advanced by the previous Government, as an absolute priority.

This is a complex issue; the Copyright and Related Rights Bill will be one of the most substantial ever to come before the House. A fast track system has been established between the intellectual property unit within my Department and the Office of the Attorney General which will greatly assist the introduction of the Bill. Senator Gallagher and others asked me to outline a time frame for the Bill's introduction. Senators will appreciate the Bill is a large and complex one which will require extensive consultation with interested parties. I am not in a position to outline an exact date for the Bill's introduction but my Department, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, is working to its full capacity towards its earliest possible publication.

There will be a period for consultations and observations from all interested parties, particularly Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, to ensure a state of the art Bill is formulated which will be an example to our trading partners globally. It is important legislation. This debate concentrated on certain elements but there are many other important aspects. I look forward to Members' comments in the months ahead.

I thank Senators for their contributions. It was important in terms of the protection of intellectual property rights which are crucial to the economy and society in the information age. Senators referred to important cultural matters and the debate was well informed. However, all Members recognise that there is much work to be done in the months ahead. Obligations under the WTO and TRIPs Agreement had to be met but the Government is determined to press ahead because of the economic benefits to and implications for the software industry. The Government has placed an emphasis on the information technology sector in which there are many important jobs. It is our duty to ensure that this sector is protected and given every opportunity to develop and expand. In addition, Ireland must be viewed as a copyright friendly country in the context of inward investment. There are huge economic considerations in this area.

I thank Senators for their contributions and look forward to the introduction of the substantial Bill at the earliest possible date. I assure Members that their comments will be explored. The Government will ensure, following consultation with all interested parties, that the final Bill is balanced, fair and equitable.

Question put and agreed to.