Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 May 1993

Vol. 431 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Payment of Royalties.

Mr. M. Brennan

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this important matter because I want to draw attention to a hidden expense borne by all publicans who provide musical entertainment on the premises. They are obliged to pay royalties to the Irish Music Rights Organisation, the IMRO but these royalties leave the country and are, therefore, of no benefit to the Government or the taxpayer.

It is now common and, indeed, expected by the public that some form of entertainment will be provided in a public house, be it live or recorded music or, indeed, radio, television or video. The playing of music in a private house does not create a liability to pay a licence fee to either the IMRO or the PPI, Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited. However, music when reproduced in public is deemed to be a breach of the copyright owned by the original composer of the music or the author of the lyrics unless there is agreement with the owner of the copyright to play it and a licence fee paid. In this regard the IMRO claims to represent the owners of copyright and, accordingly, is entitled to a licence fee or royalties when music — live or recorded — is played in public.

The IMRO charge varying rates based on the size of the premises, anticipated attendance and the form in which the music is to be played, a live band, television, radio, compact disc or tape. Invariably, the contract amount or licence fee increases and there is no price control or Government restriction, the price increase has not been related to the cost of living index in the past. IMRO employees are now very active nationwide in demanding and collecting licence fees and this is becoming an increasing burden on publicans.

The PPI claims that it holds the copyright in respect of recordings of music. This is in addition to the wholly independent licence fee charged by IMRO. When the recording is then played in public, PPI claims that it is entitled to a licence fee in respect of the use of its copyright in the playing of music by record, compact disc, tape together with recorded music played on television and on radio, excluding RTE. The fee payable to PPI is additional to the fee payable to IMRO. This in itself has caused confusion to publicans who simply cannot understand why two licence fees are payable in respect of playing one piece of music in public. This is unsatisfactory and publicans are of the opinion there is a treble charge, which is unfair in the circumstances as RTE pays a licence fee to both IMRO and PPI.

The publicans in my rural constituency of Sligo-Leitrim have suffered severely due to the economic recession, unemployment and emigration. Many publicans are finding it difficult to stay in business.

I call on the Minister to investigate the activities of IMRO and PPI and to take whatever measures are necessary to solve this problem. I endorse the Vintners Federation's recent statement that the copyright legislation is unfair and I call on the Minister to deal with the matter.

Mr. Hyland

I appreciate the Deputy's concern. I am, of course, aware of the system which exists for the licensing of copyright works and the collection of copyright royalties, and of the types of disputes in this area 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 and collect the royalties which form part of the remuneration of the songwriters, composers, record producers and other rightowners.

The Irish Music Rights Organisation IMRO, is the licensing society for the songwriters, composers etc. and Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited collects royalties on behalf of record producers, with a special arrangement for performing artists. 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.

It is a fact of life, therefore, that the copyright owners need a collecting society to license their music and collect the royalties, while the music users need a collecting society as a central source from which to obtain a licence. It is, of course, possible for commercial music users to use music which is not covered by copyright but clearly there is most commercial interest in the most popular music which is, in general, licensed by the collecting societies.

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 aware of disputes in this area covering the amount of the royalty fees, the bases by which the fees are charged and other related issues. There are also complaints about the ways in which the copyright owners enforce their rights.

However, the Copyright Act, 1963, 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 and I cannot, of course, comment on cases which are sub judice. 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. 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, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations. Increasingly, EC legislation is also having an impact on Irish copyright law.

The copyright system is, therefore, an international one. Similar, and often more stringent, copyright laws exist in other countries and our own successful international artists also receive significant royalties from collecting societies abroad. Nevertheless, I have listened carefully to the comments made about the existing system and will take them into consideration. In the near future Irish legislation will have to give effect to a number of EC copyright measures; to intellectual property provisions which may arise from the current GATT discussions; to the copyright provisions of the European Economic Area Agreement, and perhaps to a number of measures in other international agreements.

To comply with all these obligations, amendment of the Copyright Act, 1963, will be required. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Séamus Brennan, announced in this House last week that it is his intention to carry out a review of the Act which will incorporate the necessary amendments to comply with the obligations referred to and to implement any other changes considered useful or beneficial in the Irish context. An aim in reviewing the legislation is to seek the correct balance between the protection of copyright owners and the users of copyright material.