§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton)I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Copyright.
I shall not, of course, in the short time at my disposal, attempt to argue the various points which arise out of the Bill which I venture now to introduce. I am anxious that it should be placed before the House and the country, as well as our self-governing Dominions, in order that they and the public may have an opportunity of considering the matter before the further stages of the measure are reached. I do not think there is any objection found to the principle of the Bill, which I therefore assume. I also assume the advantages of International uniformity in regard to this matter.
There are three strong reasons for the introduction of the Bill. This country is a party to the Berne Convention of some twenty or thirty years ago which deals with the copyright question. The fundamental principle on which that Convention was founded was that each State should extend to the citizens of other States, and to works first published in those States, the benefit of its own copyright legislation. A few years ago there was a further Conference and Convention at Berlin which carried the matter further. The object of that Conference and Convention was to 1946 bring the domestic laws of the countries concerned into harmony with one another so as to obtain international uniformity of treatment. The ratification of that Convention necessarily involves certain changes in our law in regard to copyright, and therefore it is necessary to introduce a Bill for that purpose in order to bring the existing law into conformity with the Convention of Berlin. So far as we are concerned, it requires a larger change in our law than in any other country, for the simple reason that most other countries have brought their Copyright Law up to date, while we have had no copyright reform for very many years past. The second reason for asking leave to introduce this Bill is that our Copyright Law very urgently requires amendment, simplification, and codification to place it on a better and simpler basis. It consists of some twenty Acts of Parliament, dating back as far as 1735, and the different works and different authors have been treated in different ways, apparently without any reason or any particular ground for the differences which exist. The result is that the Royal Commission of 1878, which inquired carefully into the matter, condemned our present system of copyright emphatically, and stated that it ought to be codified and simplified. But we have so far taken no action in regard to reform. On the contrary, we have since then added to the Statute Book certain other Acts of Parliament which have made confusion worse confounded.
The third reason was the Imperial reason, namely, that any attempt to deal with this Copyright Law necessarily raises somewhat delicate constitutional questions between ourselves and the self-governing Dominions. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the difficulty of the Colonial question has been largely the stumbling-block which has caused the delay in reforming our domestic Copyright Law. The first step, therefore, after the Berlin Convention, was to summon a conference of representatives of the self-governing Dominions, of Canada, Australia, of the Cape, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, who, together with representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Board of Trade, under my presidency as President of the Board of Trade, have been sitting to consider this question. I am glad to say I may congratulate my colleagues on that Conference and the House of Commons on 1947 arriving at a unanimous conclusion as to the best method of treating the question from an Imperial point of view. I do not propose to discuss these points now—they are somewhat intricate—but I propose to circulate to-day a Paper which will show the proceedings of that Conference and the conclusions to which they came, and which will put the House in possession of the matter. In addition to that, the Imperial Conference considered carefully various points in connection with the Berlin Convention and various suggestions for the reform of our Copyright Law; and they were very materially helped in their deliberations by the Report of a strong Departmental Committee which sat last year under the chairmanship of Lord Gorell. That Committee went very carefully into the whole question from the point of view of the Convention, and recommended the acceptance of the Convention subject to a few alterations and with as few reservations as possible.
I will sum up the effect of the alterations involved by the ratification of the Convention and by the proposals contained in the Bill. In the first place, there is the abolition of what are called formalities—registration and the like; indeed, the Convention, as a whole, is based on that principle. These formalities are anomalous and vexatious, and the Gorell Committee condemned them as
anomalous, uncertain, productive of great disadvantage and annoyance to authors, while of little or no advantage to the public.Most other nations have already abolished these formalities, and unless we do so also our authors will be placed at a considerable disadvantage as compared with foreign authors. Secondly, there will be uniformity of treatment of various works coming under the operations of Copyright Law. At present the period and conditions vary greatly, and books, music, sculpture, painting, plays, and artistic works, for no apparent reason except that they are dealt with under different Acts, receive varying treatment. Thirdly, certain species of works will receive improved treatment, such as translations, lectures—I think at present a lecturer has to go before two magistrates before he can protect his lecture—original adaptations and arrangements, works of artistic craftsmanship, including architectural works of art. On the other hand, the right to dramatise a novel, and, if I may coin a word, to novelise a drama, and 1948 the public performance of musical works will be reserved. Then, further, musical works are to be protected against unauthorised reproduction, without payment, by mechanical means. On the other hand, the record itself will receive protection. The Bill introduces amendments and extensions, and consolidates about twenty enactments, and brings copyright entirely under statutory law.In addition to that the Convention dealt with the question of the basis on which copyright should be placed, and the length of the period to be allowed. Here, as regards books and some other matters, the period of copyright is life and seven years, or forty-two years, which ever is the longer. The shortest period of copyright is, therefore, forty-two years. Nearly every other country bases its Copyright Law on the period of life, in addition to a certain number of years, and practically, as regards the present position, all authorities are agreed that that is the best basis. It is an advantage that the whole of the works of an author should fall out of copyright at the same time; and it is, from the public point of view as well as that of the author, an advantage that earlier editions, which do not really represent the matured views of the author, should not fall out of copyright before the later edition.
Then, as regards the question of the period, there are some countries in which the copyrights are perpetual. Taking European nations—Union and non-Union countries—in Spain it is life and eighty years, and in Italy it is forty years. In Germany, Switzerland, and Austria it is life and thirty years, which can be put off against them. But much the largest group has life and fifty years as the basis of their Copyright Law. France, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, and Russia all have life and fifty years as the basis of their Copyright Laws. The proposal of the Convention is life and fifty years, and it is quite clear from the figures I have given that that is the only possible basis on which anything in the nature of International agreement can be come to with reference to the period of copyright. The Convention is not compulsory, but it proposes the adoption of such a period as that. Under these circumstances, and with a view to obtaining, as far as we can, International uniformity, the period proposed in the Bill is that adopted by the Berlin Convention. That period may seem somewhat long, but I think the more it is considered 1949 the more it will be seen that there is a great deal to be said for it, and I shall be prepared to defend it on its merits. The extended period will only apply, of course, to a very small fraction of the works involved. It will not add a day to any of the works which under ordinary circumstances would not survive forty-two years. But those that do survive are the works of authors—using "authors" in the larger sense—who are deserving of encouragement and consideration, and who are entitled to this addition to the period of copyright. In regard to the question of cheapness, the evidence given before the Gorell Committee was to this effect, that copyright really had little or no influence on the question of price; and that in these days of cheap editions, as a matter of fact many copyright books were actually produced at a cheaper rate than non-copyright works. But in order that the public may be protected from any possible abuse, the Bill will provide that after the death of the author, if the work is withheld from the public, or too high a price is charged for copies or for the right to perform, so that the reasonable requirements of the public are not satisfied, a licence may be granted to an applicant to publish or perform the work. Therefore, in view of the opinions of the authorities I have quoted and also the recommendations of the International Convention, I desire the support of the House to the proposals in the Bill in reference to the period of copyright.
There is one point which I wish to mention. Under the Convention it is proposed to give non-Union countries equal rights with Union countries in connection with the privileges of the Convention. The Imperial Conference over which I presided considered that that was not a politic position to take up. They did not think that non-Union countries should be allowed the privileges of the Convention without exacting reciprocal obligations from them. But, on the other hand, by Order in Council, the embodiments of the Convention can be extended to any foreign country, and they will be extended, as a matter of fact, to the Union countries; and also to other foreign countries such as the United States if they, on their part, give us reciprocal treatment.
In introducing the Bill in the very few remarks I have had the opportunity of making, I have indicated the lines on which it is based—the International 1950 grounds which alone would justify it, the Imperial grounds which would fully justify it, and the domestic grounds, which I think would give it complete justification. I think, taking all these together, there is an overwhelming case for dealing with the Copyright Laws. It will be found, I think, that the proposals in the Bill can be adopted with advantage to authors—using authors in the largest sense of the term, who are a not undeserving class—and without injury to the reading public and others concerned.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Buxton, the Solicitor-General, Colonel Seely, and Mr. Tennant. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow.