§ (1) Copyright shall subsist in records, perforated rolls, and other contrivances by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced, in like manner as if such contrivances were musical works, but the term of copyright shall be fifty years from the making of the original plate from which the contrivance was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was the owner of such original plate at the time when such plate was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends, if it has established a place of business within such parts.
§ (2) It shall not be deemed to be an infringement of copyright in any musical work for any person to make within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends records, perforated rolls, or other contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed, if such person proves—
- (a) that such contrivances have previously been made by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the owner of the copyright in the work; and
- (b) that he has given the prescribed notice of his intention to make the contrivances, and has paid in the prescribed manner to or for the benefit of the owner of the copyright in the work of royalties in respect of all such contrivances sold by him, calculated at the rate hereinafter mentioned:
§ Provided that—
- (i.) nothing in this provision shall authorise any alterations in or omissions from the work reproduced, unless contrivances reproducing the work subject to similar alterations and omissions have been previously made by or with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the copyright, or unless such alterations or omissions are reasonably necessary for the adaptation of the work to the contrivances in question; and
- (ii.) for the purposes of this provision a musical work shall be deemed to include any words so closely associated therewith as to form part of the same work, but shall not be deemed to include a contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced.
§ (3) The rate at which such royalties as aforesaid are to be calculated shall—
- (a) in the case of a contrivance sold within two years after the commencement of this Act by the person making the same be two and one-half per cent. and
- (b) in the case of contrivances sold as aforesaid after the expiration of that period five per cent.
§ Provided that if at any lime after the expiration of seven years from the commencement of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade that such rate as aforesaid is no longer equitable, the Board of Trade may after holding a public inquiry make an order either decreasing or increasing that rate to such extent as under the circumstances may seem just, but any order so made shall be provisional only and shall not have any effect unless and until confirmed by Parliament; but where an order revising the rate has been so made and confirmed no further revision shall be made before the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the last revision.
§ (4) If any such contrivance is made reproducing two or more different copyright works and the owners of the copyright therein are different persons, the sums payable by way of royalties under this Section shall be apportioned amongst the several owners of the copyright in such proportions as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration.
§ (5) When any such contrivances by means of which a musical work may be mechanically performed have been made, then for the purposes of this Section the owner of the copyright in the work shall, in relation to any person who makes the prescribed inquiries, be deemed to have given his consent to the making of such contrivances if he fails to reply to such inquiries within the prescribed time.
2156§ (6) For the purposes of this Section the Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing anything which under this Section is to be prescribed and prescribing the mode in which notices are to be given and the particulars to be given in such notices, and the mode, time, and frequency of the payment of royalties, and any such regulations may, if the Board think fit, include regulations requiring payment in advance or otherwise securing the payment of royalties.
§ (7) In the case of musical works published before the commencement of this Act the foregoing provisions shall have effect, subject to the following modifications and additions:—
- (a) The conditions as to the previous making by or with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the copyright in the work, and the restrictions as to alterations in or omissions from the work, shall not apply:
- (b) The rate of two and one-half per cent, shall be substituted for the rate of five per cent, as the rate at which royalties are to be calculated:
- (c) Notwithstanding any assignment made before the passing of this Act of the copyright in a musical work, the royalties aforesaid shall be payable o and for the benefit of the author of he work or his legal personal representatives:
- (d) The saving contained in this Act of the rights and interests arising from or in connection with action taken before the commencement of this Act shall not be construed as authorising any person who has made contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed to sell any such contrivances, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, except on the terms and subject to the conditions laid down in this Section:
- (e) Where the work is a work on which copyright is conferred by an Order in Council relating to a foreign country, the copyright so conferred shall not, except to such extent as may be provided by the Order, include any rights with respect to the making of records, perforated rolls, or other contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed.
§ (8) Notwithstanding anything in this Act where a record, perforated roll, or other contrivance by means of which 2157 sounds may be mechanically reproduced has been made before the commencement of this Act copyright shall, as from the commencement of this Act, subsist therein in like manner and for the like term as if this Act had been in force at the date of the making of the original plate from which the contrivance was directly or indirectly derived.
§ Provided that—
- (i) the person who, at the commencement of this Act, is the owner of such original plate shall be the first owner of such copyright; and
- (ii) nothing in this provision shall be construed as conferring copyright in any such contrivance if the making thereof would have infringed copyright in some other such contrivance if this provision had been in force at the time of the making of the first-mentioned contrivance.
§ (9) In the case of contrivances reproducing more than one separate musical work in which copyright subsists, the royalty payable in respect of each work shall in no case be less than a halfpenny.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI beg to propose in Sub-section (3), after the word "farthing" ["such fraction shall be reckoned as a farthing"] to insert the words "also, in the case of a medley, the royalty for each extract shall be in no case less than a farthing."
I think, perhaps, I should have suggested a somewhat lower sum if possible, but a farthing was the lowest which I could suggest. The point was brought up in Committee upstairs, and we all agreed that it seemed a hardship to a composer that medleys which contained five or six or seven extracts from musical compositions should be published without any compensation to the composer. This is an effort on my part to get something for the composer. There is no doubt that the number of medleys has been increasing and will continue to increase. The composer should get something out of them, as everybody else gets something. The workmen, the publisher, the manufacturer of the rolls, and everyone except the composer gets something. I admit, of course, that with eight or ten pieces on a record a payment of a farthing for each piece would make the price rather high.
§ Sir W. ANSONI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. BUXTONThis matter was one which I said in Committee I would consider. I have looked into it very carefully and find that the practice is practically this, that these medleys, when reproduced, mechanically are taken from musical compositions which are printed. That means that the various authors concerned have made their arrangements with the printers of the musical compositions. Practically the mechanical manufacturers themselves rarely, if ever, produce medleys which, as I have said, are taken from various musical works which have already been printed. Therefore, the conclusion I came to was this, that justice would be done to the composer if each medley together was treated as one work. That has this great advantage that it would be workable, whereas the proposal of my hon. Friend would be unworkable, as it would increase the cost so much that it would have a very serious effect on the price of the cheaper former of musical contrivances. I do not say that in some cases there may not be a hardship in not placing a minimum on these medleys, but I am bound to say that it seems to me that the only practical way of dealing with the matter is to treat the five or six pieces in the medley as the whole.
Sir GILBERT PARKERDo I understand that upon a record which contains a medley the minimum of a halfpenny would be paid in any case?
Mr. BUXTONEach musical medley is made up of a considerable number of compositions. We are treating those medleys together as a work that would be subject to a minimum of a halfpenny.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to propose, in Subsection (7), to leave out the words of the Sub-section after the word "Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "copyright shall not include the sole right to make any record, perforated roll, or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically performed or delivered."
Under the law as it stands at present it is not an infringement of copyright to make a perforated roll or any mechanical contrivance for the reproduction of musical sound. The Bill proposes to alter the law in that respect, and to make it an in- 2159 fringement of copyright so to do. I am not objecting to that by this Amendment. What I am objecting to is making that new provision retrospective. It ought not to affect people who have already spent their money in producing a certain stock and who have that stock in hand. Every manufacturer is entitled to sell while the law remains as it is at present without any royalty at all. The matter is one of very great importance to makers of musical instruments of whom there is a very large number in London. Whatever other arguments I may be met with I hope that I shall not be met with the argument that this matter has been settled by the Committee or by arrangement with particular members of the trade. I could understand the argument that it had been settled in Committee in the case of a Select Committee where they have heard evidence which this House has not had before it. On a question of this kind I submit we should have an opportunity of putting forward our own case, and particularly as it affects our constituents, and if we are to be met with the answer that this matter has been fully threshed out in Committee then our rights as private Members to bring forward the case of our constituents are affected. I also hope that I shall not be met by the right hon. Gentleman with the argument that this matter has been settled with the trade, because while I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has been approached by particular members of the trade and that their particular interests have been met, there were other interests which were not at all represented before this Committee. Therefore, I ask from this House fair consideration for these other cases. These gentlemen were not dealt with at all, and I think that an arrangement of this kind ought not to be binding on this House.
A letter was written to the right hon. Gentleman by certain large manufacturers of musical instruments, who informed him that their case had not been before him at all. It is dated 25th July, 1911. They say:—
We the undersigned manufacturers of and dealers in perforated music rolls, beg leave to inform you that we were not consulted with respect to the new clause that has been added to this Bill, providing for the payment of royalties on music published before the commencement of this Act.'That letter is signed by, among other large companies, the Orchestrelle Company, Steinway and Sons, Sir Herbert Marshall and Sons, Limited, the Per- 2160 forated Music Company, and other large firms. The right hon. Gentleman tells me he has made an arrangement with the Gramophone Company which has satisfied them. That may be so. I do not wish in the least to interfere with any arrangement which he may have made with that particular firm, but I submit that the special case of these firms should be considered by this House from the point of view of doing justice. Under the law as it stands it was perfectly open to these firms to manufacture these perforated rolls without paying any royalty at all. That was decided in 1900 in a case in the Court of Appeal of Boosey v. Wright. In that very decision the court took into consideration the fact that the Legislature in 1842 must have contemplated the existence of musical instruments and deliberately refrained from imposing a royalty on those or making it an infringement of copyright to manufacture them. Lord Justice Romer in his judgment particularly refers to that, and there were musical instruments of this kind such as musical boxes in existence in 1842 when the Copyright Act was passed. Since then the legislature expressly recognised this, because in the Musical Copyright Act of 1906 they expressly exempted from its provisions musical instruments of this description, and moreover the Berne Convention of 1886 also exempted from the scope of infringement of copyright musical records and perforated rolls of this description.6.0 P.M.
So the House has got to start with this position that these people who have laid out their money upon this particular business started at a time when it was the law that they could do so without infringing any copyright, and when they were justified in assuming from the action of the legislature itself that the legislature would not reverse the position, or at all events if they did would not do it retrospectively so as to injure them. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has realised how large a question this is for these particular interests concerned. Take the case of one firm alone, who have in stock at the present time something like 10,000 stencils from which the rolls themselves are manufactured. They are expensive things to produce, and cost money at a time when it was perfectly legal for them without infringing any copyright to make those stencils. Not only have they got some ten thousand of these in their stock, which would be 2161 affected by the Bill if it remains in its present form, but I have heard of close upon half a million musical rolls made from stencils and sold at a time when it was no infringement of copyright. The Legislature is now going to step in, with regard to these hundreds of thousands of rolls, made at a time when they could be legally made and without paying any royalties, and say, "You shall pay a royalty." I submit to the House that it is not just or equitable in any way to make a provision of that character. I think that, as a matter of principle, we should always be very careful before we make any law retrospective at all. The Courts are very careful about construing an Act, in regard to its being retrospective, which almost always works an injustice. Not only have they manufactured this large stock at a time when it was legal to do so, but the manufacturers have entered into contracts under which prices are already fixed. They will not be able to alter those prices when you impose this royalty upon them. It is proposed now, even with regard to those large stocks which they have got on hand, that they shall not be able to sell them without paying a royalty of 2½ per cent. on the retail price. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that 2½ per cent. on the retail price is not a very large percentage, but he must also bear in mind that it is a large percentage in the case of the manufacturers, to whom it would be a very considerable item. But whether it is a large or a small item, I do submit that it would be contrary to every principle of justice and of equity to make this provision retrospective. In America a somewhat similar question arose, and when the American Act of 1909 was passed—it was considered for four years before it became law—an express provision was inserted in it to the effect that, although in future the composer was to have the right of receiving royalty in respect of these perforated rolls and musical records, that it should not apply retrospectively to known works. The following is the Clause:—
Provided that the provision of this Act, so far as they secure copyright controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically, the musical work shall include only compositions published and copyrighted after this Act goes into effect.That was a just provision to put in the American Copyright Act, and it would be a just provision to put into this Bill. Again let me refer to the Berlin Convention itself, which has given rise to this 2162 very Act on which it was largely founded. Clause 13 of the Berlin Convention contains a provision, in regard to these mechanical reproductions of existing works, and says that it shall not "retroact."I agree that there may be some question how far it extends, or whether it merely extends to the case where contrivances have actually been made before the passing of the Act. If the Government think that my Amendment goes further than the provision in the Berlin Convention, I am quite prepared to accept words limiting it to what the Departmental Committee held to be the interpretation. I do not ask for anything more than the Berlin Convention, although perhaps my Amendment goes further. One interpretation of the Berlin Convention is that it shall not retroact. I think I may refer to what the Solicitor-General said with regard to the Berlin Convention, when he was speaking of the provisions giving copyright to architects. The hon. and learned Gentleman then based himself very strongly on the Berlin Convention, and what he said on the 28th July was as follows:—
The first point is that there was a great convention signed as the result of the Conference at Berlin, There was an international discussion, followed by an international convention. I do not suggest that any desperate international consequences will follow if we depart from that convention, but I ask the House to observe that the inclusion of architecture in the scheme of the Copyright Bill was then recommended, and, so far as this country was a party to that convention, is covenanted for in the Berlin Convention. Therefore, if we do not include it in the Bill, we are deliberately refusing to do a thing which our representatives, negotiating with other great civilised countries of Europe, came to the conclusion ought to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1911, col. 1934.]I use those words of the Solicitor-General in support of my argument. I am perfectly content, if the Solicitor-General thinks that my Amendment goes further than the Berlin Convention, to accept any modification of it which brings it into line with the Berlin Convention. There is a very large export trade in these rolls, and the other signatories to the Berlin Convention, who have adopted its provisions without making them retroactive, will be put in a position of advantage over the British manufacturers, who are going to be subjected retrospectively to the payment of this royalty, for the reason that in those countries no royalty will be made payable by the manufacturers, while a royalty would be payable by the manufacturers in this country. That, again, is a further reason why the right hon. Gentleman should adopt the provison of the Berlin Convention, which was accepted by the 2163 Departmental Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. It ought to be borne in mind that most existing copyrights have been assigned by the composers, and are now vested in the publishers. I quite agree that under the provision of the Bill these royalties are, under special provisions, going to the composers, but 80 per cent. of them have been assigned to the publishers. What are you doing? What are you giving the composer who assigned all his rights at a time when he was absolutely certain that he was never going to get anything more from his copyright? You are giving him a windfall which was quite unexpected, and you are going to give it to him at the expense of the people who have laid out their money on the footing that it was perfectly legal for them to do what they did do, without making any bargain about it at all. I think the authors and composers have done pretty well out of it. I think their interests have been most ably represented on the Committee. If they are going to have these great advantages in the future, I think they might at least be content to allow existing stocks of rolls possessed by these manufacturers to be free of royalties, and that in future they should be allowed to sell perforated rolls from stencils or contrivances with regard to particular copyright works made before this Act comes into force. I have no objection to this measure as a whole; in fact, if I may be allowed to do it, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been so successful in consolidating so many Acts of Parliament which were difficult to construe in one Act, and I think that consolidation will be an advantage. While the right hon. Gentleman has accomplished that work, I wish to press upon him as strongly as I can that he should remove from the Bill this blot, which would do a great and grievous injustice to a large trade, which employs a great number of persons.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that this is not a case for retrospective legislation at all, and I think the public ought not to be excluded from doing what they can do now as regards existing works. I would point out that the reproduction of music by mechanical means was known under the Copyright Act of 1842, when there were barrel-organs, musical-boxes, and other contrivances from which the modern record is a 2164 mechanical descendant. In 1842, the Legislature expressly did not include those mechanical contrivances for the reproduction of music. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, in the copyright legislation of 1906, they were also expressly excluded. It is as well, I think, that the House should bear in mind that those who are making these records now from existing works, are doing what Parliament has held they had a right to do, and what has been expressly sanctioned by that provision in the Copyright Act of 1906. In these circumstances, while I think the copyright in records should be extended so far as future productions are concerned, I submit to the House that it ought not to apply retrospectively to existing productions, which the public are already free to use in that way. If this provision, or anything like it, goes through it will be retrospective as regards works published, not only here, but as regards certain works published in foreign countries. While in those foreign countries I believe I am right in saying they have not this retrospective provision, here we would be hampered by the retrospective provision and by the payment of royalty. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to deal with that point. Reference has been made to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars, but I should like to point out that it does not, to my mind, go far enough. We wish to safeguard the rights of the public to existing works, and I think we should do it in express terms, and in the simplest possible way.
Mr. BUXTONI am not going to say that a discussion or decision of a Grand Committee ought to be sacrosanct and not reviewed in this House. I quite agree that any such decision is subject, and justly subject, to the decision of this House, but at the same time I think that when a Grand Committee of this sort has given very careful consideration to the various points which have come before it that the decision in that case, and unanimous decision, I believe, in this case, deserves the consideration of the House when they are deciding as to what line they should take in regard to Amendments moved. As regards the second point, in the course of the Copyright Bill, I saw a very large number of persons, and rightly so, who are pecuniarily interested and otherwise interested in the question. I did my best to ascertain what was in their mind in order to arrive at the best conclusion I could having 2165 regard to the justice of the various views expressed. I must deny the statement that the particular interest of which the hon. Member is speaking this afternoon had no opportunity before 25th July, 1911. As a matter of fact, I received a deputation from the various interests concerned on 2nd May before the Bill got into Committee, and I considered the various questions then put to me by the deputation, of which, I think, the hon. Member was a Member. Therefore, I was entitled to think that the various views had been represented.
§ Mr. CASSELI think that at that time it was represented to the right hon. Gentleman that those interests desired that the Bill should not be retrospective, but subsequently an arrangement was made with the Gramophone Company alone without those interests being consulted.
Mr. BUXTONThat is not so. I do not really attach any importance to this point, but as the hon. Member made it against me, or, rather against the position I am taking up, I am entitled to show that it was otherwise. Sir Herbert Marshall came on that deputation on the 2nd May, and I had no representations direct or indirect from those he professed to represent until 25th July, some time after the Bill had left Grand Committee. Therefore, I was entitled to conclude that he was represented by the other Gentleman whom I saw from time to time. I really think I have some cause to complain that when there was opportunity of putting Amendments before the Grand Committee it was only a week or two ago these Amendments were put down by the hon. Gentleman some time after the Bill had come to the House.
§ Mr. CASSELI was not on the Committee.
Mr. BUXTONIf the interests concerned considered that they were in any way injured by the proposals, surely they could have had the opportunity through a Member of putting Amendments down. The point of the hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, is that if this Bill is made retrospective it will be injurious to and place a very heavy burden upon a particular trade. He spoke of this as being a windfall, as did my hon. Friend who seconded, to the composers. I do not at all agree with that view. I am quite sure if when the Act of 1842 had been passed, when those rights in printed musical works had been given to the composer, it had been anticipated for a moment that 2166 musical works would have been reproduced by mechanical means, then I am quite confident that the composers would have been given their copyright, like any other author or artist. Therefore, though I do not say that people were not perfectly entitled for the last eight or nine years to reproduce those works by mechanical means without payment, I am bound to say that I think the composer has a considerable grievance in the matter; and I do not think that it is at all unfair when you are, as you are, very much restricting the opportunities of royalties to give him retrospective rights with regard to compositions. The hon. Gentleman said that ho was quite content with the Berlin Convention. Substantially the proposal is in conformity with the Berlin Convention and with the report of the Committee to which ho referred. I propose to accept an Amendment on the Paper from my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division.
The hon. Member said that it was rather hard on those companies to pay royalties on those stocks immediately, but that is not so. So far as they have those already in stock, and so far as the particular composition has been already reproduced for eighteen months they will be charged no royalty. At the end of that time they will be charged royalty in perpetuity, but only 2½ per cent. In addition to that it will not be necessary for them to obtain the assent of the author for reproduction, and they will have much greater freedom and greater elasticity with existing works. Under those conditions I cannot think that this is in any sense a real burden on this particular trade, whereas I think it is a slight solace to the composer for the rights we are depriving him of in the future. As regards the public, I would point out that the royalty of 2½ per cent. for existing works was fixed at that low rate because it was shown to the Committee that many of those rolls and other mechanical instruments were reproduced at the low figure of half-a-crown, two shillings, and so on, and that, therefore, unless the royalty was pretty low, it might be difficult to adjust the price without throwing a burden on the public. The particular rolls to which the hon. Member has referred are not those cheap rolls which would be in any way affected by the 2½ per cent., which is only a penny in forty pence. They are of a much higher character, and of a much more expensive character. I find that none of them are below two shillings, that 66 per cent. of them are above 5s., and 2167 that no less than 20 per cent. of them range from nine to ten shillings. Therefore 2½ per cent. would foe a very slight burden on the trade, and I am quite convinced no burden on the public at all. Under those circumstances, I hope the House will reject the Amendment and allow the Bill to go as it stands. Really, I think it protects both the trader, the manufacturer, and the public, and at the same time is a slight solace to the author, who in other parts of the Bill is considerably deprived of his opportunity.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to move, in Subsection (7), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words, "but no royalties shall be payable in respect of contrivances sold before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirteen, if contrivances reproducing the same work had been lawfully made or placed on sale within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten."
I do not think there is any need to make a speech after the long and learned speech to which we have listened from the other side, and the crisp speech of my hon. Friend who seconded the previous Amendment. I may say that I am largely in sympathy with what has been said by the two hon. Members. I think this is a modification of the Bill which can be accepted by the Government. It simply provides that in respect of those contrivances made two years prior to the Bill coming into operation that the Act shall not apply if those things are sold within one year after it comes into operation. That, of course, prevents those people taking any advantages while the Bill has been under discussion, and it enables them to clear off all those contrivances made when presumably they had no knowledge of the Bill.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to second the Amendment. As I could not get the Amendment I myself moved I think this is certainly much better than nothing. The only point I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider is whether the words, "sold before the first day of July, 1913," ought not to be omitted, because there is no reason why you should limit this to sales within the year. Suppose the people cannot get rid of their stock, and they have very large stocks of these rolls, why should they not get the benefits of the exemption. If it is right that they 2168 should have an exemption why should they not have it whenever they sold them? Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would not be willing to take out the words "sold before the first day of July, 1913"?
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORThe speech of the hon. Gentleman is an example of how voracious is the appetite for the interest which he represents. I am extremely sorry that my right hon. Friend has accepted the Amendment at all, but I should be driven to something like despair if I thought he was going to accept the further suggestion now made. The hon. Member suggests that nearly two years is not sufficient time for these people to get rid of their discs. I cannot understand any human being except the hon. Gentleman maintaining that proposition. I am strongly against the Amendment, but I shall not oppose it, because I am a man of peace and compromise. At the same time it seems rather ridiculous that after these people have had twenty or thirty years of free pillage, they should now get a further term. As I say, I am a man of compromise, but all the compromise should not be on one side. As my hon. Friend has received this concession, I would ask for a small concession in return, namely, that when we come to Clause 37, instead of making the date of the commencement of the Act the 1st July, 1912, we should make it the 1st January, 1912. That will not affect the present Amendment in the least; it will only affect the new discs and the new perforated productions. But it will give the poor authors and composers a little earlier opportunity of getting their rights, which the Bill, after all, gives with a very niggardly hand.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI should like to recall to the Committee the early discussion upstairs when we were all practically agreed upon two things, the first of which was that there should be copyrights in discs already made. I remember a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), which greatly impressed the Committee, in which my hon. Friend showed the injury that was being done to British workmen and British manufacturers by unfair competition from Russia. In securing copyright in discs and records already made, you secure a very slight advantage to the author and composer, but you secure a very great advantage to the manufacturer and the workman employed in the manufacture. It was on 2169 that basis that retro-activity was arranged. There was to be retro-activity of copyright secured on works already made if a royalty was paid, and that royalty has been whittled down to one penny in forty pence. I ask any human being who understands business whether any manufacturer would take that percentage of profit on any work he produced. As far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to compromise and to accept the Amendment which has been proposed, but to whittle it down still further is really an injustice, to which I think this House is ill-prepared to consent. Two and a-half per cent. is offered to the composer on condition that he accepts retro-activity. It is a small sum, insignificant beyond words, but it establishes the principle. I ask anyone who knows about these matters whether he considers 2½ per cent. a high percentage. I think that he will agree that the minimum has been given. I suggest that the further Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should be accepted.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Amendment refers to the date, and the suggestion of the hon. Member is germane to it, though the House cannot come to any decision on it now.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI understood that the principle of retro-activity would be accepted, and that if a royalty was granted it would be granted from the date of the passage of the Bill. But it is not going to be granted from the date of the passage of the Bill; therefore I ask that the concession suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should be made. In a year, at any rate, the manufacturers would be able to get rid of their stock. Does my hon. Friend (Mr. Cassel) suggest that manufacturers, knowing their market, manufacture goods for years ahead? They manufacture from year to year as near as they can, and they are not likely to lay up so large a stock that they cannot get rid of it, particularly when they have no royalty to pay. I beg the Committee to look at the matter not from a generous but from a just standpoint, and to accept the suggestion which has been made.
§ Sir JOHN SIMONI should be very sorry indeed if now that we are getting to the end of the Bill there 2170 should be any feeling of injustice or of a want of consideration on one side or the other on what is after all not one of the fundamental provisions of the Bill. The House is agreed that what the hon. Member calls the principle of retro-activity should be applied to this matter. Then comes the very difficult question how exactly you are to introduce your new scheme in the existing situation. While I suggest that the Amendment might be accepted as a businesslike proposition, I feel the force of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think it would be possible to carry out the suggestion quite in the way proposed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, for this reason: if you say at the end of the Bill that the Bill shall come into force on the 1st January instead of the 1st July, it must come into force for all purposes. The Board of Trade have to make a great number of regulations, and I am not certain that there would be sufficient time either for the trade to make their preparations or for the Board of Trade to make the regulations. Clause 19 (3) refers to the sale of contrivances within two years of the commencement of the Act. That is to say, the two years do not run from the date when the Act is passed, but from the commencement of the Act. If an opportunity were taken in another place to substitute for the words "the commencement of the Act" the words "the passing of the Act" we should be making a concession. I hope in these circumstances the Amendment will be accepted.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI am quite willing to accept the compromise.
§ Mr. J. WARDI have no wish whatever to upset the arrangement which is being entered into, but I think a statement should be made on the other side of the question. The hon. Member has referred to this royalty as a beggarly, miserable 2½ per cent. I would like Members of this House to understand that up till the time when this Bill becomes law there is no copyright at all in these things. A Bill passed through the House of Commons so recently as 1906, referring to Musical Copyright, absolutely and definitely declared that there was no copyright in these things which we are now declaring to have copyright for the future. As a matter of fact, what we are doing with this "beggarly," "miserly" 2½ per cent. royalty is to make a free grant of it to people who never had any right before of even ½ per cent. I think 2171 that under those circumstances at least we ought to be given credit for having gone so far as we have. Something is better than nothing. At all events, we who are engaged in negotiations in labour disputes usually think so.
We are recognising a right, a vested interest, in a thing in which no right or vested interest has ever before been recognised. To that extent I think this Bill is generous. It is not beggarly or miserable. It is positively generous. It is recognising a form of property that has not previously existed at all. Those of us who were on the Committee, and I was on the Committee— and I know more about copyright now than I ever did before—and heard the Debates and discussions—remember the peculiar incident of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) saying that he was a man of compromise and was always prepared to surrender his view to the views of other people providing that he always got hold of the best end of the negotiations! I venture to suggest that this is, after all, a free gift, which has established a right for composers, though, I am afraid, the thing is being argued as if the royalty went absolutely to the composer of music. That is not so.
§ Mr. J. WARDAs a matter of fact I do not suppose the composer will get one-thousandth part of the gift we are making. It is people who by some means—some great musical publisher who gets hold of the copyright in a particular music to which reference has been made—it is really that vested interest that we are creating on this occasion. There is no doubt a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend said. It does seem wrong in the case of a composer, and looks unjust when one inquires into it; that someone may be able to come along, some big publisher or gramophone firm, and lay hold of a piece of original music and make a fortune out of its reproduction, and absolutely ignore the right of the composer altogether. I feel quite sure that there is no Member of this House but what would like to protect the composer if it were possible. I have no doubt we are doing something towards assisting in his protection. I, however, learnt sufficient on the Committee to know that the lion's share is going to be taken by other persons than the composer.
2172 While I have no objection to the demand made it must not be forgotten that a compromise has been arrived at which those concerned considered reasonable and fair. The proposal of this Amendment does not alter the compromise nor affect the interests of those concerned to any great extent either one way or another. I have no reason whatever for arguing against the Amendment or for interfering with the suggestions made on either side of the House. But to say that we are acting ungenerously and in a miserable way, and not doing the thing which is fair and just, is, I think, uncalled for. I think after the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee we have gone in a direction generous rather than otherwise in relation to this matter.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. J. Ward), but very largely throughout the proceedings of this Copyright Bill I have found myself in agreement with him. What I do want to suggest to the President of the Board of Trade and the Government is that this Bill in its present form is practically a compromise, and an agreed compromise. I look upon it as not quite fair that any extreme alteration should be made in the Bill, and the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, does make a considerable difference in the Bill. While I do not want to make a speech now, I may say that many of us have on the understanding that it was desirous that this Bill should be got through to-day, forborne to put down other Amendments that we had in our minds. I should have put down several other Amendments on points where I did not agree with the Committee upstairs. I have forborne to do that because in its main provisions the Bill was an agreed Bill. I do not think the Government ought to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division, or the alternative suggestion made by the learned Solicitor-General. I do say this: that if this Bill goes to another place that it must not be understood that the suggestion of the Solicitor-General is an agreed suggestion on the part of all Members of this House. If the Government do make that alteration in another place, they must run the risk that it will be debated when the Bill comes back.
Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this is a departure more or less from the agreement 2173 or conclusion to which the Committee came when they discussed this matter. That is perfectly true. On the other hand, I did say at the concluding part of the debate that the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Blackfrairs was one that deserved consideration, and that I would consider it. I am now accepting the Amendment in the interests of the composers, I am bound to say, too, that the very small suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, is one that he is perfectly entitled to make in these circumstances. I do think that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division, is not an unreasonable proposal. I think it will make the Bill more workable. Therefore, I hope it may be taken as part of the general conclusion to which the Committee came to. Certainly, it is not adverse to that principle in any way.
§ Mr. BOOTHI put an Amendment down on the Paper to bring the Bill into operation in 1913, or later. I represent no interest I am proud to say. I cannot be pulled upon cither side. I listen with a great deal of horror to this kind of bargaining between one interest and another. "You give us something and we will give you something." It seems to mo that the public are being lost sight of. I heard in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) that the payment of a royalty meant an increase in the price.
§ Sir GILBERT PARKER dissented.
§ Mr. BOOTHI accept what the hon. Baronet says, but I would advise him to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. That is my point, that "undoubtedly the price will go up," and that means an infringement of the public rights. It means that it will be more difficult for poor people to buy these books.
Sir GILBERT PARKERWhat I did say was that one-half of the manufacturers would have the opportunity of selling their goods without the 2½ per cent. royalty, and that, therefore, they could sell them cheaper.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am not replying to the hon. Member's point on that. I do not consider it worth discussing. I only was replying to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland division, namely, about bringing the Bill into operation at the earlier period. My Amendment was to bring it into operation a year later. Out of consideration for the House, though I still believe in it, and in order to facilitate the passing of this Bill, I did not bring my Amendment forward. I was not prepared to hear the earlier suggestion made. It is a retrograde direction. This Bill is an attack upon the public, being an increase of price, an encroachment upon the liberty of the subject, and the later it comes into operation the better for the public good.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move, in Subsection (7), paragraph (c), after the word "work" ["copyright in a musical work"] to insert the words: "any rights conferred by this Act in, respect of the making, or authorising the making, of contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed shall belong to the author or his legal personal representatives and not to the assignee, and."
This is only carrying out what was intended. The words which we are adding are intended to provide that the author shall get the advantage, not only of compulsory royalties, but any other royalties which arise in this new subject matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.