Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome to the House. As others have said, this Bill is short but it signals a major shift in how copyright is handled in Ireland.My aim today is to outline the key principles at stake, explain the practical implications for artists and rights holders and show how the amendments should align with international best practice and the public interest. As others have said, the RAAP and PPI case raised questions referred to the European Court of Justice about funding and distribution rights. Some describe this as a tidy-up or technical fix, but in truth the Bill changes how disputes over music and sound recordings are decided. A core change is shifting oversight from the Controller of Intellectual Property to the Circuit Court. This is a substantial move and I would love to hear a bit more of a detailed explanation from the Minister to get a really good understanding of it because there are real concerns about the cost to creators if disputes go to the Circuit Court. That could deter individual artists from pursuing their rights. The Bill also moves from group action through representative bodies to individual cases, which is a fundamental change that could affect smaller creators.

I will say a little about the four aims of the Bill. It fully transposes the 2006 rental and lending directive, which affirms that authors and performers have an unwaivable right to fair remuneration and aligns with EU law that fair pay must be respected.

Second, it builds on our international obligations under the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the Rome Convention, allowing people from other countries to vindicate their rights in Ireland and Irish nationals to vindicate their rights abroad. I would love to get a little more clarity on reciprocation in practice because that is going to be really important.

Third, it establishes an equal sharing of royalties between producers and performers for sound recordings, addressing the decline in performers' shares that followed major label changes. This aims to make the split fairer and easier to enforce, benefiting both performers and producers.

Fourth, the plan to move sound recording disputes to the Circuit Court is based on the idea that the controller lacks the necessary judicial competence for these cases. As other speakers have said, there are legitimate concerns about the speed and cost of the courts. It is unusual that this change affects only sound recordings, while all others area of dispute resolution in copyright matters remain under the remit of the controller. We must ensure that this shift does not create a barrier for ordinary musicians and creators who rely on timely decisions and affordable processes.

What does this mean in practice? To illustrate what this means for a performer, let us consider a singer-songwriter who releases an album with songs covered by multiple performers and produced by a small label. The royalties from public performances and broadcasts are managed through a collective system, with the opportunity to have any dispute handled by arbitration, which keeps costs down and resolves matters quickly. Under the new rules, if that artist has a dispute over royalties for a particular live performance or broadcast, they may need to pursue it in a Circuit Court rather than with a specialist regulator. In addition, their collective management organisation, CMO, is not authorised to act on their behalf. It must be done on an individual basis. This will undoubtedly discourage them from pursuing claims that they are rightly owed. That is my biggest concern here. The intention of the Bill should be strengthen rights and ensure fair pay for artists and others. We must ensure pathways remain accessible for individuals with modest earnings and that their rights can be vindicated by the CMO representing them.

In building a modern rights system we must balance the rights of creators with the needs of audiences and industry participants. Strengthened governance, data integrity and equitable distribution will help Ireland remain a competitive and attractive place for cultural production and innovation. The amendments should be proportionate, transparent and inclusive, accommodating smaller creators as well as larger enterprises.

I will specify which amendments I believe are absolutely necessary. First, the role of the Controller of Intellectual Property in resolving section 208 disputes must be retained. The controller acts as an independent statutory office operating under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Sections 363 to 367 of the Act already allow the controller to permit an entity like RAAP to be a party to proceedings in a section 208 dispute and to refer the dispute to an arbitrator, especially where specialist knowledge is involved. That is what is really important here. The section also addresses costs and time limits and provides for appeals. This is a well designed system which gives the controller a flexible, supported and effective way to resolve disputes, free of the overwhelming disadvantage of litigation.

Second, we need certain basic provisions inserted into the Bill to offset the monopoly that record labels have over the collection process and to ensure remuneration is shared equitably between both sets of rights holders. To achieve this, the legislation must ensure the management of the rights of performers will be carried out by the CMO representing performers, which is registered with the Controller of Intellectual Property, with an opt-out for any performer who chooses to opt out. It must also specify that the calculation of the share of the individual performers will be carried out by a licensing body for performers rights with certain necessary credentials and that if there is more than one such body and they cannot agree which one will carry out the calculations, the controller shall designate the body to conduct the role.

I will keep engaging with RAAP and other sector representatives in the coming weeks. I seek clarity from the Minister on why this is considered a minor change, how reciprocation will work in practice under the international treaties, and whether the Circuit Court path will be affordable and accessible for individual creators. I also want to see clear transitional arrangements to minimise disruption for current licensees and meaningful consultation before Committee Stage.

Ireland is already a complete outlier in Europe in the distribution of performance royalties. In every other member state of the European Union, there is a fair and transparent system where CMOs work consensually to collect the single payment due to performers and producers whose recordings are played on radio or TV or in a bar or restaurant. A performer CMO then receives the share of the performers and calculates and distributes the individual payments to the performers.

There are small variations between countries but the model is broadly the same. There is transparency and parity of esteem. There is no real controversy. The system works; it just does not work in Ireland. As required by EU law, will the Minister ensure this legislation is revised to properly complete the transposition of the directive? Specifically, the right of performers' CMOs to manage performers' rights under the directive must be preserved, including RAAP, where it holds the necessary mandates. The right to equitable remuneration cannot be vindicated by individual performers dealing one by one with the record labels. An effective and affordable default mechanism is crucial to making the system operable and avoiding the delays and expense of litigation. This can be achieved by simply retaining the existing remit of the Controller of Intellectual Property.

I thank the Minister very much. I would love to continue this conversation with him and his officials and to have constructive discussion and debate focused on practical implementation, safeguards against inequities, and measures that will deliver real benefits, particularly to artists and creators.