David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes, but I want to indicate that I will not press it to a vote. I reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

I thank the Minister of State very much for his helpful suggestion that I meet with officials of his Department. I see two of them here today. I believe this was led by Ms Debbie Browne. I was not able to go to the original meeting because I was unwell but Senators Bacik and Warfield did attend and they found it useful. The Department officials made arrangements for me to see them another day and I did go in. I spent an hour with them and it was extremely useful. They gave me a series of precedents and law cases.

As I understand it, the argument from the Government is essentially that, while we are putting something in here about our concern for particular kinds of libraries and research facilities and so on, this kind of protection is dispersed throughout the Bill. It argues that this exists so our amendments are not necessary. That is the situation as I understand it. The way in which education in libraries and archives is dealt with separately in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 is consistent with EU copyright acquis, in which they are also dealt with separately to ensure clarity as to the exceptions and limitations for each area. We are largely following the principles and ethos of the European Union again.

If a library based in an educational institutional provides a public lecture, it may rely on the exceptions provided for libraries and archives under section 18 in respect of the use of works that are copyright protected, and section 31 in respect of the use of recordings of performances that are copyright protected. If that same library was providing an internal lecture for students, it would rely on the exceptions for education under section 14 in respect of the use of works that are copyright protected, and section 28 in respect of the use of recordings of performances that are copyright protected. These areas are covered in our amendment, but I understand the Government's argument is that these are covered in different parts of the Bill anyway so our amendment is redundant. That is my understanding but it is a rather technical Bill and I am not particularly good at technical things. I have to feel my way around. One can give me any kind of numbered diagram about how to put in a plug or how to change the wiring in one, but I cannot do it. My mind just freezes. If, however, one shows me how to rewire a plug, I can do it quite easily.

I will leave it at that because we have a number of large, long and detailed amendments to come to. Perhaps I should say a little bit more. Section 18 provides for a new section 69A in the Copyright and Related Rights Act, which would allow libraries and archives to displays works in their permanent collections or though dedicated terminals. They would not be inhibited in mounting exhibitions of material. That kind of public viewing is not seen as an infringement of copyright. That is, of course, just plain common sense and a very good thing.

At this stage, I will make brief reference to a number of cases that were drawn to my attention. They were referred to by the senior civil servants to whom I spoke. I said that I had no idea what they were and asked to have some details sent on to me. The first one was Padawan SL v. SGAE, C-467/08. The 2010 ruling in this case enshrined that a fair balance must be maintained between right holders and users of protected subject matter and that the concept of fair compensation must be regarded as recompense for the harm suffered by the author or right holder through a private copy being made. That ruling also clarified that a private copying levy must be linked to the act of private copying specifically, so there is a resultant need to carve out a levy being placed on business media and equipment. That seems to go towards a situation in which it is the individual copyrighter who is being targeted. It says that a private copying levy must be linked to the act of private copying. When one says, "the act of private copying", it suggests an individual in his or her room with a machine making this copy.

There was a number of other rulings but I will come on to them later because they seem to fall principally into the area of fair compensation and fair dealing, which relates to amendment Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive. I will leave it at that but will the Minister of State confirm my view that the intentions of the amendment we tabled are met in disparate parts of the Bill? This follows the protocol of the European Union, but I would like confirmation that the issues we raised and the concerns we had have been met in the Bill, meaning that our amendment, to that extent, is redundant. I may have completely misunderstood the Minister of State but, on the other hand, I may have got on to something fairly logical.