COPYRIGHT (GRAMOPHONE RECORDS AND GOVERNMENT BROADCASTING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.24 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The law enforced in Singapore relating to copyright is the Copyright Act, 1911, of the United Kingdom, as modified by the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 176). The Copyright Act, 1911, was repealed by the Copyright Act, 1956, of the United Kingdom. However, the repeal did not apply to Singapore and the 1956 Act was never extended to Singapore.

Sir, it is not the intention of this Bill to make comprehensive changes to the present law as was done by the 1956 Act of the United Kingdom. The Bill, as Members will note, is quite limited in scope and deals with two immediate problems - to prevent the piracy of gramophone records and to exempt the Government from infringement of copyright in respect of radio and television broadcasting.

As regards the first problem, there has been over the past year or so a large increase in the importation and sale of pirated records of musical works with subsisting copyright. Many of such pirated records are of sound recordings made in Singapore and the royalties which are due to local artistes and composers and the employment of local musicians are somewhat in jeopardy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.27 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): The newly established industries -there are three of them - for the manufacture of phonograph records in Singapore are also seriously threatened. For these reasons, penalties for the infringement of copyright in gramophone records are urgently required. Thus clause 3 of the Bill provides that any person who makes, reproduces, imports for sale, exposes or offers for sale or has in his possession for sale any pirated copies of any gramophone record, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, and in the case of a second or a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both such imprisonment or fine. However, it shall be a defence if such person proves that he had no reason to suspect that he was dealing with pirated copies of gramophone records, that he had given all information in his power to the police or the prosecutor, and that he had acted innocently in the matter. A police officer is also empowered to arrest without warrant any person who sells or exposes for sale any pirated copies of any gramophone record in a public place. Any person who has in his possession five or more pirated copies of any gramophone record shall be deemed to be in possession of such copies for sale.

Provision is made under clause 4 of the Bill to empower a Magistrate to grant a search warrant authorising any police officer to enter the premises named therein to search for and seize any copies of any gramophone record which appear to be pirated copies. All copies of a gramophone record so seized shall be brought before a court and, if they are proved to be pirated copies, shall be delivered to the owner of the copyright of such record or dealt with as the court thinks fit.

To facilitate the prosecution of such offences, clause 5 of the Bill provides that an affidavit made before a notary public by or on behalf of the owner of the copyright in any gramophone record may be admitted in evidence and shall be prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.31 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): As regards the second problem, the Broadcasting Department of the Ministry of Culture is paying to account a fixed sum each year to the Performing Rights Society, London, for the performing right in sound recordings broadcast over Radio and Television Singapura. Claims for royalties have also been received by the Broadcasting Department from the International Federation of Phonographic Industry and the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society. It is estimated that if all these claims have to be met, the Broadcasting Department will have to pay quite a substantial sum each year in respect of its use of sound recordings made abroad. In addition, expenditure will also have to be incurred by the Broadcasting Department to keep a record or records of the number of times each sound recording is broadcast for the purpose of determining the royalties payable to these organisations. As Radio and Television Singapura provide an essential service, it is in the interest of the public that the cost of this service be kept as low as possible. Hence the Bill provides that the copyright in a musical work or gramophone record is not infringed by the Government when it causes the musical work or gramophone record to be heard in public by means of a radio or television broadcast. Clause 6 of the Bill further provides that the copyright in a musical work is not infringed by the Government when it makes a record, tape or other device in respect of that work solely for the purpose of being used in radio or television broadcast.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising my query not to seek a legal opinion from the Minister but to seek clarification in respect of clause 6 (2) of the Bill. The Bill contains provisions which empower Radio and Television Singapura to make records or tape from gramophone records and telecast and broadcast the taped records. Am I right in assuming that one can make a record or tape the broadcast which has already been taped by Radio and Television Singapura without infringing the provisions of the Bill? If my interpretation is correct, will the Bill not open itself to abuse by pirates?

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: May I know if it is the usual custom for other countries to have a clause similar to clause 6 of the Bill?

Mr P. Selvadurai: Mr Speaker, Sir, while I would welcome this Bill, clause 6 is a bit difficult because it tends to expropriate property rights. In order to justify this clause, I would like to know how much Government proposes to save by validating its action in recording these materials.

Mr Barker: If I may deal with the Member for Telok Blangah first. If anyone tapes from Radio and Television Singapura and uses it outside, it will be piracy. If the Member for Telok Blangah has a tape recorder at home, tapes and records from T.V. Singapura and uses it in public, he will be liable to the penalties provided for under this Act.

The Member for Joo Chiat wants to know whether there is similar legislation to that provided in clause 6 elsewhere. The answer is - if there is, I am not aware of such legislation.

The Member for Bukit Panjang talks of expropriation and he wants to know what is the amount involved. I am afraid I cannot give him the details. I am not the Minister for Culture. Unfortunately, he is not here. But I am sure he will be happy to provide the Member with figures. But I would like to assure the Member that we have no intention of making this Bill retrospective. What is past is past. This Bill provides for the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.41 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 -

Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Sir, I crave your indulgence in taking this opportunity to answer the query raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang. The Broadcasting Department has been paying royalty fees to some international bodies. In fact, they are United Kingdom based organisations. One is the Performing Rights Society, London. We pay the Society a fixed sum of about $25,000 a year. The other is the International Federation of Phonographic Industry, to which a sum of $15,000 is paid. In the past, a directive came from the then Governor that we would have to pay royalties, and we did pay. There was no reason given why we should pay. But in the colonial days the directive came from the Governor, and it was complied with.

The Performing Rights Society, London, claims to represent international authors and composers in respect of royalties to be paid. This body and the International Federation of Phonographic Industry have claimed in recent years an increase in the sum payable to them on the grounds that we have extended the hours of radio broadcasts and that recently we have introduced television. We have considered this problem. Let me put it this way. Broadcasting in Singapore is a Government institution. The motivation is, therefore, not profit. Whatever entertainment and information we provide through this medium is a kind of education for our people. It is unlike other commercial stations in the world, if it were, I would have supported the payment of royalties. Although Radio and Television Singapura is partially commercialised, as I said earlier, the entertainment and other programmes provided through this medium are not profit motivated. As such, we feel that it is imperative that we should keep the cost of broadcasting as low as possible for the benefit of the public.

Mr Barker: May I have your indulgence, Sir? Members may be interested to know, whilst we are on clause 6, that though Singapore has attended many international conferences on protection of copyrights, designs and patents, we are not a signatory to any international convention on copyrights. We have not signed because it is the developed countries that have the know-how and knowledge of these matters. They have in the past refused or have been rather reluctant to help developing countries increase their knowledge of this subject. This Act provides for protection of copyrights and, in fact, it is welcomed by international bodies like the Performing Rights Society of London, it provides them considerable protection from piracy. The amounts paid by Government, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, are small when compared to the extent of protection afforded to copyright owners. I think I had better state here openly that we have received representations from these societies. They welcome the Bill, but they have asked us to reconsider the provisions of clause 6. We have considered their representations and decided to proceed with clause 6.

Mr Selvadurai: May I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir? The consequence of what the Minister said just now is that we should not sign the International Convention on Copyrights and Patents. If we do, then, of course, we might have to amend clause 6, which might otherwise become illegal.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have clause 6, I am afraid one day the result will be such that even the poorest type of films or musical shows of any kind will not be obtainable for Radio and T.V. Singapura.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I am not quite clear about what the Member for Joo Chiat has said. Perhaps he might care to repeat it.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: Sir, I am thinking in terms of musical films of any kind for T.V.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: That is quite simple, Sir. When we hire the films, we pay for the hiring of the films and we are not liable. It is the film distributors who will be liable. I am sure they have already made arrangements with the international body concerned.

Mr Barker: Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that we are not a member of inter national conventions and we have no intention of becoming a signatory to these conventions. The reason, I repeat, is that these conventions are for the benefit of the developed countries who refuse to share their knowledge with us. It is for this reason that a Bill of this nature was not passed before. I have mentioned that three industries have been set up in Jurong producing musical records and it is for the protection of these industries that this Bill is introduced.

The Member for Joo Chiat is a little worried about not getting films. I think the answer is quite simple. Unless we pay for our films, the film distributors will not let us have them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.