Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. b1 is simple enough. It proposes to amend section 38(1)(b)(i) of the principal Act to insert "each" after "in respect of". Its purpose is to back up what I have been saying. It is straightforward and simple. It will change the wording to "agrees to make payments in respect of each such playing or inclusion in a broadcast or a cable programme service". There should be no ambiguity in this as people can exploit that ambiguity, as has happened in the past to the detriment of performers and probably also producers. The amendment sets out very specifically that payment is for each broadcast or inclusion of a performance. This would strengthen the provision.

Amendment No. c1 provides for another straightforward change to section 38(1)(b)(i) of the principal Act. It proposes to insert the following after "a licensing body": "for the purpose of remunerating jointly the qualifying copyright owner in the sound recording and performers whose qualifying performances are incorporated in the sound recording, in respect of such playing or inclusion". Again, this will align our legislation with Article 8.2 of the EU directive. It is clear what the intention of the directive is in this case.

Amendment No. d1 is a more substantial amendment, which I submitted together with my colleague, Deputy Conway-Walsh. It is intended to bring the clarity being sought by RAAP. It proposes the inclusion of the word "only" between "may be exercised" and "through a collective management organisation" in section 38 of the principal Act. I tinkered around with the wording, which might not have the full effect called for by RAAP and others. I might come back to it but the intention is to bring clarity that the right to receive equitable remuneration is a right shared between the qualifying copyright owner of the sound recording and the performers whose qualifying performances are incorporated in the sound recording. It will give definitions for how a qualifying copyright owner and qualifying performer or performance can be identified. It will ensure respect for the central role of the collective management organisations registered with the controller of an intellectual property.

It is worth respecting the role of collective management organisations like RAAP and PPI. The right to a single equitable remuneration is one performers simply cannot exercise on an individual basis. We cannot expect a performer or artist to monitor every single use of his or her performance. That is impractical and it is why organisations like RAAP have been set up throughout the world. They represent work as collectives on behalf of performers. The collective management organisations were set up specifically for that purpose. They are not for profit but for the benefit of the artists.

There should be nothing in this legislation that would undermine the rights of collective management organisations, their recognition and the specific role they have. What seems to have happened is that performers were being lumbered or burdened with having to do all the work themselves. As I said, the right to an equitable remuneration is one performers cannot exercise individually. They do not have the facility, unless they are multimillionaires, to monitor all uses of recordings and manage the relationships concerning payments. Managing all uses of a performer's performance or recording would see performers ending up having to negotiate to try to get their remuneration. That is specifically why the collective management organisations were set up and their role has been recognised.

There is a guide of collective management produced by the World Intellectual Property Organization, which confirms there is "one specific area of related rights where joint collective management is indispensable, namely, the right of performers and producers in respect of broadcasting communications to the public of phonograms." Currently, the producer representative controls outright, even ifdisputed, all aspects of the setting of the tariffs, the collection of licence fees and the management of both the performer's and the producer's interest. This is entirely inconsistent with the concept of shared right, which should provide for the participation by the performers in all stages of the process. This, in turn, will deliver the transparency and accountability of those shared rights.

The Spanish have an intellectual property Act. Perhaps in the time between us concluding Committee Stage today and when we resume the Minister of State might look at the Spanish intellectual property Act, which gives a more precise example of how this can be done within a framework of mandatory collective management. It states:

The right to the single amount of equitable remuneration ... shall be exercised through societies for the collection of intellectual property rights. The exercise of that right through the relevant collecting societies shall include negotiation with users, the calculation, collection and distribution of the remuneration due and any other action necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the said right.

I am nearly done. All 17 collective management organisations RAAP surveyed in preparation for its amendments - it supplied everybody with the information - said that compulsory collective management is provided for in their domestic legislation. It looked at 17 organisations. I do not know whether in the preparation of this Bill the Minister of State and the drafters looked at those best practises across Europe. Without telling the Minister of State what to do, although maybe I could advise her, and I know we are all looking for some type of break or at least a wind down of sorts, but she or the officials might get a chance during the summer to sit down with representatives from RAAP and discuss the wording because we have that opportunity. Even if we conclude today, and if we have Report Stage, we should be able to get this right. This is in all our best interests. I will finish with that. I have more on those points, but I will finish on those sets of amendments.