COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, last year when moving the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, I said that it was not the last word on the subject and that we will have to evolve our copyright legislation in the light of changes in on-going technology. Since then, an inter-agency Committee led by the Registrar of Trade Marks and Patents studied international trends and developments. They proposed the changes in the Bill to meet the new challenges presented by the development of new technology and the increasing popularity of electronic commerce.

The proposed amendments address the more urgent needs of copyright owners and users of copyright materials in the on-line environment. It will improve copyright protection and enforcement measures for copyright owners in cyberspace, thereby promoting the use of the Internet by businesses. It will also promote greater legal certainty for both copyright owners and users of copyright works, as well as intermediaries such as network service providers, concerning the application of copyright protection in the digital environment.

In formulating these proposals, the Committee considered various international models, including the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty and the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The Committee has a wide representation. In addition to representatives of the relevant governmental agencies, the Committee also included representatives from the National University of Singapore and the media. The Committee also consulted the Law Society and various industry players on the substance of its proposals. Sir, this is a Bill arrived at after an extensive consultative process.

Amendments to improve copyright protection in cyberspace

Having made those introductory remarks, let me move on to the proposed amendments. I would first deal with the first group of amendments, i.e, those intended to improve copyright protection and enforcement measures for copyright owners in cyberspace.

The first aspect is that concerning temporary or electronic reproduction right. One of the key rights of a copyright owner is the exclusive right to make copies of his works. It is presently not very clear if this exclusive right extends to electronic copies and transient copies made in the electronic environment. The Bill clarifies this by extending the right to cover electronic reproduction. Such an extension will give copyright owners an effective means to control the copying of works that they make available on the Internet and through electronic transmissions.

Protection for compilations

In recent years, development in computer technology and the advent of the Internet has led to a proliferation of multimedia works. The issue of copyright protection for multimedia works has become increasingly important. A multimedia work can be made up of different types of underlying works, such as sound recordings, photographs, film clips and write-ups. Each of these underlying works presently enjoys individual copyright protection but the multimedia work itself, that is, the effort expended in selecting and compiling these individual underlying works together, may not be protected by copyright.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill address this anomaly by replacing the existing definition of "literary work" in section 7 of the Act with an expanded definition set out in a new section 7A. Currently, "literary work" is defined to include a compilation in words, figures or symbols. There is uncertainty as to whether this is confined to compilation consisting solely of literary works (in which case, multimedia works would not be protected), or if it also includes compilation of different kinds of work (in which case, multimedia works will be protected). The Bill therefore provides a new definition which says that "literary work" includes a compilation of any form of works. This will afford copyright protection to multimedia works. This new form of protection will be limited to the intellectual creation involved in the selection or arrangement of the contents of the multimedia work. The protection will be in addition to and independent of the copyright protection which the individual underlying works may already enjoy.

Protection for electronic rights management information

Copyright owners are increasingly using electronic rights management information to protect their rights in cyberspace. Electronic rights management information includes information attached electronically to a work which identifies the work, the author or copyright owner and any terms and conditions relating to the use of the work. Clause 34 of the Bill provides for civil remedies against tampering with electronic rights management information. The legal protection of electronic rights management information will help copyright owners better protect their rights in cyberspace.

Amendments to provide legal certainty

Sir, I turn now to the second group of amendments aimed at providing greater legal certainty for the application of copyright protection in the digital environment.

Browsing exception

We all know that the use of the Internet has become increasingly prevalent. It has become an invaluable source of information and entertainment for many in the world today. I am told that every time a person views a web page on the Internet, he causes at least six copies of the web page to be made. Consequently, there is some uncertainty whether copyright is being infringed when one browses through the Internet. The new section 193E introduced by clause 21 of the Bill makes clear that copyright is not infringed when end users cause incidental copies to be made in order to view, listen or utilise works made available on the Internet.

Limitation of liability for network service providers and removal of infringing materials by network service providers

I now come to what are probably the central provisions of the Bill. Network service providers play a vital role in the on-line delivery of content for copyright owners. It is therefore important that the legal framework gives network service providers certainty about their liabilities and responsibilities to copyright owners. Clause 21 of the Bill therefore introduces sections 193B to 193D to address these concerns.

These amendments ensure that network service providers are not liable for any kind of incidental copying that may occur in the technical processes of carrying out their activities (for example, caching). The amendments distinguish between materials to which the network service provider provides access and materials which are hosted by a network service provider at the direction of a user. In the latter case, section 193C allows the protection to be lifted if a copyright owner files a Statutory Declaration that those materials are infringing. A network service provider faced with such a Statutory Declaration can do one of two things.

He can immediately remove the materials as demanded by the copyright owner. If he does that, he retains his protection under section 193C against copyright infringement actions. At the same time, section 193D protects the network service provider against any action brought by persons who want the material to remain on the network. By adopting this course of action, the network service provider ensures that he cannot be sued for copyright infringement for materials hosted by him.

Alternatively, the network service provider can choose to ignore the Statutory Declaration. Once he does this, he loses the legal protection conferred on a network service provider by section 193C. This does not mean that the network service provider automatically becomes liable for copyright infringement. What it means is that the network service provider's liability will then have to be determined in accordance with the other general provisions in the Copyright Act, and it also means that he can no longer rely on the special immunity given to a network service provider. Why would a network service provider choose this course of action, and thereby throwing away the network service provider immunity and risk being found liable for copyright infringement under those general legal provisions? He may want to do so, for example, if he is confident, that the material is not infringing. A person who makes a false Statutory Declaration can be punished for doing so.

Sir, the new sections 193B to 193D finely balance the rights and interests of copyright owners, users of materials and network service providers. They provide legal certainty for both network service providers as well as copyright owners, while preserving at the time, a certain level of freedom of action for network service providers.

Transfer of electronic copies

Clause 21 of the Bill further introduces a section 193F to facilitate the transfer of works in the digital environment. This clarifies that if a person who has bought an electronic copy of materials transfers it, the transferee will have the same rights as those enjoyed by the transferor provided the transferor does not keep any copy for himself.

"Reasonable portion"

Let me touch on some minor amendments to extend existing copyright concepts to make them relevant to the digital environment. The first concerns the concept of "reasonable portion". Currently, the Copyright Act permits copying of a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work under certain circumstances. As a guideline, a "reasonable portion" is defined by reference to the number of pages of the work. Such a measurement may not be possible in the electronic environment. Clause 3 of the Bill therefore extends the definition for works in the digital format by using the measurement of electronic bytes.

Exceptions for libraries and archives

The second amendment concerns the exception for libraries and archives to make a copy of a work for preservation and other purposes and the exception for anyone to make a copy of an unpublished work kept in a library or archive for research and private study in sections 47 and 48. These amendments remove or replace words like "microform" and "manuscript".

Exceptions for educational institutions

The third amendment concerns the ability of educational institutions to make copies of works within prescribed limits for educational purposes. Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill extend this permission to include copies of works on networks controlled or operated by educational institutions. This will facilitate educational institutions using Internet and other new technologies to conduct distance learning courses and other educational activities.

Performers' protection

Last year, we introduced provisions in the Copyright Act to protect performers' rights. These provisions are found in Part XII of the Act. Based on feedback which we have received, a number of measures are introduced in this Bill to fine-tune the provisions concerning performer's rights and to allow those rights to be protected more effectively.

First, in order to conform with international norms, performers' rights are extended to allow performers to have recourse against commercial dealings in pirated recordings of their performances and to make such commercial dealings an offence. Secondly, the present restriction in the Act against assignment by performers of their right to sue is removed. This will allow performers to take action through collective management agencies. Thirdly, the Bill also allows a broadcaster and a performer to agree to a period of retention for recordings of his performance made for broadcast which is longer than the statutory prescribed period. This amendment will give effect to existing commercial practice.

Border enforcement measures

Last year, the Copyright Act was amended to introduce border enforcement measures. These are in sections 140A through 140R of the Act. These provisions allow a copyright owner who suspects that a shipment of pirated goods is coming into Singapore to alert the Customs and Excise Department so that the goods can be seized. Certain safeguards have already been built into the provisions when they were introduced last year. Based on feedback and experience, two further safeguards are introduced by clauses 18 and 20 of the Bill to ensure that the border enforcement provisions are not abused.

The first safeguard will empower an authorised officer to require a complainant to give security in relation to damages which he may be ordered to pay for wrongful seizure. The second safeguard is to allow a person aggrieved by the seizure to apply to the court for compensation if the complainant fails to follow up on the seizure by taking infringement action, or having taken infringement action, the court then rules against the complainant or if the complainant withdraws the action.

Other Amendments

Sir, to wrap up, may I quickly touch on the remaining amendments in the Bill. Clause 13 deletes section 108(2) so as to widen the scope of the public performance rights of authors. Clauses 15 and 17 amend sections 120 and 136 to widen the category of items on which the court may make a delivery up order. The amendment to section 136 further allows an application for search warrant to be made in any court. Currently, such applications can only be made before a magistrate. Clause 22 amends section 199 to provide that a broadcaster's right to re-transmit a broadcast by cable without infringing copyright in the underlying work is restricted to broadcasts originating in Singapore.

Future directions

Sir, in closing, let me say that this Bill reinforces Singapore's commitment to provide a strong intellectual property rights regime to encourage the growth of a knowledge-based or information economy and to promote e-commerce and creative innovations. As technologies are ever evolving and as new issues surface as a result of the constantly changing environment, I must say that this Bill is by no means the last word on the subject. We will continue to monitor international developments and we may have to propose further refinements to our copyright regime to cope with the technological developments as and when the need arises. We are committed to ensuring that our copyright law will be responsive to the changing needs of industries and we will continue to evolve to take into account new developments.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Minister's motion and the three purposes of this Bill.

I would like the Minister to address, however, certain wider concerns and make certain clarifications which will help in the future interpretation of the Act in the market place. I am also glad that the Minister says that this Bill is not the last word, and I therefore think that even if these issues are not addressed today, they can be addressed in a future copyright amendment.

It is important to realise that copyright was a right created to protect the authors of books, and it has been slowly extended over the years and centuries to include dramatic performances, sound recordings, films and now the further extension into the world of e-commerce and the Internet. It is very important to realise too that some of the older concepts have to be changed, because as the Minister has mentioned, every time we browse and surf the Internet, we are actually breaching somebody's copyright, because we are copying his material on to our computer. It is therefore good to have this Bill but I think it may one day be important for us to think of a sui generis protection, not to extend copyright but to think of a specific right to protect computerised material.

In particular, I would like to raise certain issues in clause 3 of the Bill which redefines the proposed section 7 of the Copyright Act. Under the proposed section 7(2), there is an attempt to indicate what reasonable portion means in the context of electronic material.

In the old world of paper, we could say that 10% of a book would be a substantial copy, and anything beyond that is not a reasonable portion to use. However, I am a little concerned that we are now trying to extend this paper world rule into the electronic medium and trying to say that instead of 10% of the material, we now talk about 10% of the bytes. And 10% of the bytes, to me, is really an arbitrary and rigid definition for an electronic medium. For example, if I take two pages from a book of 100 pages, that is not an infringement under the 10% rule. But two pages from an electronic work of similar length may actually contain two pages in format which contain a lot of bytes. It could be, for example, in PDF format, video, sound or animated graphics, which require a lot of bytes. Or perhaps in these two pages, the author has embedded his digital watermark and therefore there are a lot of bytes in there. And just by taking two pages from the book, not knowing that he has embedded this digital watermark, I have infringed his copyright. I would like the Minister to assure us that this indeed is not the case. Otherwise, a blind extension of the old rule is not good enough.

Under clause 4 which is a new section 7A, there is an attempt to include multimedia material in the definition of "compilation". Most web sites today would be compilations of some sort. There will be different things in there - texts, graphics, animations, video and so on. And it would really be useful to say that these things are also protected.

Again, I would like to explore the further question which is whether we should really try and extend the concept of literary work to these areas, or whether we should actually start thinking of a special right, perhaps a database right and special computer compilation right. Some countries have indeed database law. However, computerised material does not contain just computer databases. And under section 7A, that appears to be the intention. The compilation should be of various relevant materials which includes sound recordings, cinematograph films and so on. But sub-section (3) of the proposed section 7A deals with compilation or table wholly of relevant materials or compilation or table of partly relevant materials, or compilation of data.

The definition of "data" here is not stated but I suppose reading in the context, it refers to computer data and therefore you either have a compilation of relevant materials wholly or in part or just purely computer data.

Sir, I do believe however that the word "data" is not just simply a technical word for bytes and bits of computer data, but it also means nuggets of facts and figures which together form information. And therefore that is the plain English meaning of this word and it would mean therefore that a compilation can either be of relevant materials like video, tapes and sound recordings and/or data. And so when this section deals with compilation as disjunctive references, I take it that it misses out on the fact that a database or an Internet site may contain video and data at the same time. Perhaps the Minister could also clarify this rather technical point.

Secondly, "relevant material" here is defined but I think it probably misses out on certain aspects of computer databases and web pages, and that it does not appear to me to cover animated graphics or unpublished computer programmes basically on the exclusio unius principle, ie, in the first definition of "relevant material", it refers specifically to a work, "including a computer program". Therefore, subsequently, when it says in paragraph (d) "a published edition of a work", there would be no reference to a computer program.

The third point I want to make about this Bill is that in clause 10, in the proposed section 51(3) and (4), there are certain exemptions given for teachers who teach in educational institutions. Sometimes they do have to make copies of copyrighted material and we do need to give them some protection from being prosecuted or sued for breaching somebody's copyright. I hope, however, and this is not clear in the Bill, there is protection for a teacher who is teaching a class using a laptop and - besides the fact that he has got to download a website and other relevant copyrighted materials on his laptop - sometimes, he may actually need to access on-line, say, eg, a website to demonstrate the features of the website. Sometimes not all classrooms have got the on-line connection, or perhaps there is an on-line connection but the teacher feels that when he teaches, he wants to be sure that he can logon to that website without having to wait for traffic to clear, without having all kinds of unexpected problems. So he may actually want to download the whole site onto his laptop, and then refer to it in the course of his lectures. As I read currently, clause 10, it does not seem to protect him in that sort of situation, because when he downloads a whole website to protect himself from unexpected downtime, for example, he would actually be breaching the 5% or the 500-page rule.

The fourth point I want to make is on clause 21 which is the proposed section 193B. There is this further elaboration of what a network service provider will be protected against. When I first read this Bill, Sir, I realised that there is a general immunity to network service providers given in section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act. And when I heard the Minister's speech in this House, I have the understanding - and I hope the Minister will correct me if this is the wrong understanding - that there is the general immunity in the Electronic Transactions Act, and what we are legislating here is that in certain circumstances where copyright is concerned, we have a special immunity for certain network service providers who feel that they can come under this protection and therefore it does not prejudice his general defence under the Electronic Transactions Act. If it does prejudice his position, then I would urge this House to include the words "without prejudice" to the Electronic Transactions Act as a prefix, so to speak, a clause which prefixes this new section.

Sir, my final point is that under clause 21 of the Bill which proposes a new section 193C, particularly subsections 2(a) and 2(c), there is mention of control and I seek the Minister's clarification. "Control" is not defined and it could well be technical. Most of the time it is a technical control. But would it be possible for somebody to argue in court that because the ISP has put in certain contractual provisions, for example, to prohibit a user from accessing pornography on pain of damages, that he therefore has control and is out of this defence?

The second point under this clause I want to raise is that there is a procedure of what I would call a notice to take down. In other words, if a network has got infringing material and the copyright owner says, "I send you notice to take it down, you must do so." As it is phrased currently, I think there is some room for abuse. First of all, it is possible where the stakes are high enough for somebody to allege infringement and therefore send a statutory declaration purportedly signed by him. And then there is no timeframe to take down the pages and there is no procedure to challenge this notice to take down. It, first of all, should be necessary, not just to have a statutory declaration, because a person, where the stakes are high enough, may say, "I am happy to be fined for perjury, but I want to stop this competitor in his tracks." So it would be necessary for a properly authenticated statutory declaration, or perhaps a court order. Secondly, it would be important to clarify how an overseas copyright owner can get a statutory declaration that is valid under Singapore law. What happens if his own law does not allow for or does not permit a statutory declaration? There is also a need to make sure that there is a certain time frame to respond and a redress mechanism perhaps for abuse of the notice to take down. This procedure can also be evaluated in a court of law.

Finally, on clause 21, I would certainly hope the Minister can clarify, because the words "network service provider" are not defined, whether perhaps a search engine provider would be such a network service provider. In the circumstances where a search engine provider may actually allow a user of the Internet to download certain copies of other people's copyrighted materials, would a search engine provider then be deemed to be a violator, infringer or a facilitator of that infringement? I hope that with these clarifications, the Bill would be a far more understandable provision when it is applied in the market place.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the Copyright (Amendment) Bill. However, I would like the Minister for Law to deliberate on several areas of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Section 7(2A)(a) states what constitutes a reasonable portion for copying as not exceeding 10% of the total number of bytes. May I ask the Minister why this portion is fixed at not more than the 10% stipulated?

Section 7(2A)(b) states "in a case where the work is divided into chapters, exceeds, in the aggregate, 10% of the total number of bytes in that edition but contains only the whole or part of a single chapter of the work". This is rather ambiguous, if not confusing. Does this mean that copying of 10% of each chapter is allowed or that the total copying of the whole edition regardless of the number of chapters should not be more than 10% of the whole text?

Clause 10 -

Section 51(5) specifies that a person cannot make a copy of any other part of that work "within 14 days after the day on which the previous copy was made." I would like the Minister's deliberation on this time interval. In my opinion, a shorter period like seven days would, in fact, be better as it facilitates the users' need for research.

Clauses 15 and 17 -

In section 120(1), the words "predominantly used" have not been defined. Similarly, the words were used again in section 136(a) and not defined.

Clause 23 -

Section 201B is unsatisfactory because it would cause some injustice. When the partnership or the body corporate has been charged or punished, the individual should be spared. Punishment to both individual and the partnership or body corporate would result in duplicity of charges and punishment. If the individual should be culpable, then he should be held responsible and not the partnership or body corporate. However, if it is intended to be a collective punishment, then the partnership or body corporate be punished and not the individual.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Dr Toh See Kiat and Dr Lily Neo for their comments. Before I deal with their specific points, since the issues they have raised touched on fairly technical matters, let me make a few preliminary comments.

First, I am not an expert on some of these technical issues and I will bow to my colleagues on technical issues such as digital watermarks, animated graphics and so on. But let me assure my colleagues that these and other questions of details have been carefully considered and formulated by an inter-agency Committee which included experts from different agencies, such as the National Computer Board, staff from the National University of Singapore who are well versed in computer law as well as representatives from other agencies.

The next point I want to make is that on the solutions and approaches which I referred to and which are to be found in the Bill, I do not expect them to please or satisfy everyone because there are so many different ways and approaches to solving these very difficult problems in the context of ever changing technological developments. Also, different countries are grappling with these issues and have adopted diverse approaches. We could, of course, wait for months and years to see how the dust has settled in other countries. But because of the considerations which I have alluded to in my speech just now as well as last year, we want to have an effective and up-to-date copyright regime and intellectual property right regime. We have to make changes as and when the need arises. So we cannot wait for all the developments which have taken place and then decide which is the most perfect solution. It is really a matter of judgment. In arriving at the approaches, we have taken into account the developments in other countries as well as the existing scheme in our Copyright Act because our approach has been that if the existing scheme for other forms of copyright has worked fairly well, then we will try to follow as far as possible a similar approach and we will try to be consistent. But as I said, this is not the last word on the subject.

Having said that, let me turn to some of the specific points raised by Dr Toh See Kiat, in the order in which he referred to. First, he talked about clause 3 (section 7) on "reasonable portion". Of course, he has a point as to whether we could leave "reasonable portion" undefined for electronic documents or whether 10% of the bytes is arbitrarily rigid. Let me explain that the approach we have taken is to define "reasonable portion" for electronic works because we wanted to provide in the legislation a minimum level of certainty. Therefore, the definition, I should stress, is not exhaustive. It is expressly provided that the definition does not limit the meaning of the phrase "reasonable portion". If, say, more than 10% of the number of bytes is copied, the court could still regard that as copying only a reasonable portion, because it all depends on the circumstances of the case. I am advised that such flexibility will address the special cases which Dr Toh See Kiat referred to, such as the example concerning digital watermarks.

Then he referred to questions of compilation, whether it is conjunctive or disjunctive in clause 4 (new section 7A). Let me say that this definition in subsection 3 is actually intended to capture any compilation that falls within either paragraph (a), (b) or (c). The definition should not be made conjunctive, because if we did so, then it will imply that the compilation must satisfy all three paragraphs before it can be protected, and that is not the intention.

Dr Toh also made a point about "relevant material". The way the phrase "relevant material" is defined in section 7A(3) is to include a work and a work is defined in section 7 as meaning a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Therefore, graphics would be an artistic work and is a relevant material. A computer program is a relevant material regardless of whether it is published or not. A published edition of a work is specifically mentioned because there is a separate copyright in the typographical format that lasts 25 years in a published edition. There is no need to state computer program again in paragraph (d) since paragraph (a) already mentions a computer program, and that will cover published and unpublished computer programs.

Dr Toh See Kiat also spoke about clause 10, new section 51(3) and 51(4), and talked about the teachers' possible problem. Let me say, in reply, that the 5% rule applies in the print media as well. Thus, in the print media, if he looks at the provisions of the Act, the teacher can only make multiple copies of 5% of a work for teaching purposes without infringing copyright. But it is felt that there is no reason not to apply the same restriction in an electronic environment. I should also point out that new section 51 only applies to making a copy on a network controlled or operated by an educational institution. I realise that Dr Toh See Kiat would favour a more liberal regime where even if he were to download it onto his personal laptop, from a policy point of view, it would be difficult to give a blanket exemption for downloading for teaching purposes. But let me at the same time point out that teaching online is facilitated because if the teaching is done through real time access to websites, they can always rely on the exception for browsing.

Dr Toh See Kiat referred to clause 21, new section 193B, and whether we should insert the words "without prejudice". I should point out that the proposed new section 193B is wider than section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act because there is no requirement that the material is a third party material which is found in section 10 of the other Act. Therefore, there is no need to insert "without prejudice" since it is not narrower than section 10. It is wider. In other words, this provision is more detailed only because it is meant to apply exclusively to the question of copyright. The Electronic Transactions Act has a different objective.

Dr Toh also talked about terminology control, technical contractual provisions, ISP prohibiting users from accessing pornography, and so on. I think the answer to this is to say that the control required is over the network. The conjunctive end for operator and control in section 193C(2)(a) is the operative element. Therefore, it must be a network operated by the NSP as well. An NSP is only obliged to remove materials from such a network.

He also talked about the requirement of statutory declaration. I would say that we should not read too much into the term purported as a statutory declaration really has to be authenticated. As Dr Toh See Kiat knows, it has to be authenticated by a Commissioner of Oaths. Having a requirement for court order, in my view, would be too cumbersome as the real idea here is to give copyright owners a quick redress before they take out copyright infringement actions. So nobody has said about statutory declaration. But I do not think people in Singapore take statutory declarations that lightly because there are penalties which follow if one makes a statutory declaration fraudulently. The requirement of a statutory declaration, in my view, itself should suffice to prevent abuse because there is a redress for prosecution for false statutory declaration. Any aggrieved party can also take out a civil action for malicious prosecution against a defender who has made a false declaration.

As this provision concerns Singapore's network service providers, I think it is reasonable for us to expect the copyright owners would contact the network service providers through agents located in Singapore. It is foreseeable that in practice, such declarations may be made for collective management agencies. As I have said, mechanisms for redress for abuse of notice can be taken care of by civil action. In the United States, as he referred to the system in the US, there is a challenge mechanism because the notice is not required to be a statutory declaration as far as I understand the United States system, and there is less safeguard against abuse. But as we have incorporated the safeguard in the notice through the requirement of a statutory declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths, the challenge mechanism involving NSP may not be necessary. That is the explanation.

As to the timeframe in which the NSP should act, I think a reasonable time is a tested formula, and I doubt if a NSP would not act within such reasonable time when it receives a statutory declaration.

Turning to the questions raised by Dr Lily Neo, first, she also touched on clause 3 (section 7, subsection 2A) on "reasonable portion". Let me repeat here again that section 7(2A) is an extension of existing section 7(2A) into the digital environment. The 10% yardstick is actually taken from section 7(2A) which provides that a reasonable portion includes a copy of not more than 10% of the number of pages in a work. The approach of taking 10% as a yardstick, of course, was taken sometime back when we enacted this particular provision in 1987. It is felt that this provision has worked quite well all these years. And when we decided to insert the new section 7(2A) to make the term "reasonable portion" relevant to the digital environment, it was felt that there was no good reason to depart from the yardstick of 10% which has been used all these years. While it is clear that copying only 10% for the purpose of research and private study will not amount to infringement, I want to stress that this does not mean that copying more than 10% will automatically result in infringement. In other words, where more than a reasonable portion is copied for the purpose of research and private study, we then deal with the issue whether the copying is a fair dealing in the light of circumstances of the case. And as Members know, there are other provisions which relate to fair dealing.

Dr Lily Neo also touched on provisions which talk about work being divided into chapters and so on, whether it is ambiguous, if not confusing. Here again this phrase is a mirror of section 7(2B), the existing provision. The amendments merely extend the application of an already existing provision to enable its application in a digital environment. What the provision really says is that "reasonable portion" means a single chapter of the work or 10% of the work, whichever is the greater. But this is based on an existing approach already to be found in the Bill.

On clause 10, Dr Lily Neo raised the question of 14 days and 7 days. Here again I want to point out that the 14-day limit is the approach already to be found in existing section 51. The Bill merely extends the existing provisions so as to make them applicable in an electronic environment. Section 51 is more appropriate for multiple copying by educational institutions. If her concern, as I understand it, is about the problems which researchers and students may face, I wish to point out to her that students or researchers can rely on the fair dealing provision in section 35 for private study and research. And in section 35, there is no 14-day limit.

Then Dr Lily Neo referred to clauses 15 and 17 concerning section 120(1) on the phraseology "predominantly used" and why this has not been defined. We have not defined this term because in some instances, and this is one, it may be better to leave it to the courts to apply the provisions to the facts of individual cases. It is not possible really to give a definition to every term because circumstances may vary so vastly. In appropriate circumstances, for example, in the case where a photocopying machine has been found to be predominantly used for making infringing copies by the defendant on the particular facts of a case, the court can order that photocopying machine, for example, to be delivered up to the plaintiff.

Dr Lily Neo then referred to clause 23. It is a provision relating to offences committed by partnerships or body corporate. Let me say here that this provision is not new in our laws. An equivalent provision can be found in the Trade Marks Act and the Patents Act. In fact, you can find similar approaches in at least 20 other pieces of legislation in our statute books. The provision really gives flexibility whether to charge only the corporation or the individual, or both. Sometimes the facts of the case would make it appropriate to charge only one or the other. Sometimes it would be necessary to charge both the corporation and the individual to ensure that either one or the other is not let off unfairly.

Let me stress that this is not what lawyers referred to as a "strict liability" provision. In other words, the partners who are directors and who are proved to be ignorant or who have attempted to prevent the commission of the offence would not be caught by this provision. In other words, the prosecution will have to produce evidence against these people before they are convicted.

I think I have touched on the main provisions. But my reply should not be taken to dismiss their ideas and suggestions out of hand. There are many different approaches to these difficult, tricky issues of copyright. The fact that we have adopted these measures shows that we would like to give these approaches a try.

We have made amendments as a result of feedback and experience to some of the other provisions which we enacted sometime ago. And so it goes on. Copyright is one area of the law which is fast evolving. So we will see how these provisions work. I hope that in the light of experience, they will work effectively. But our consultations with the industry and other professional bodies as well as the different agencies and Ministries will continue. And it may be necessary after a decent interval of time to come back to this House if we find that the provisions need updating.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Point of clarification, Sir. In referring to a classroom situation, the Minister has mentioned that in the print medium situation, the teachers are allowed 5% copying and that where online teaching is used, the teacher would have ample protection. I am just concerned that in the situation we are in today, we want to have a nation of IT users and teachers must therefore have the utmost freedom to teach and use facilities that sometimes may not be there, in a sense that not all classrooms have online connections and not all students can afford. In a print medium situation, the students can buy books if more than 5% is used. But not all students will be able to afford an online connection, especially one without wires in a classroom situation.

Prof. Jayakumar: His concern is noted. I will discuss it with the Committee. It is really a question of balancing. From the point of view of promoting the interests of our educational institutions, the ideal situation of course is if they do not have to observe copyright at all! But we have to balance the interest of users of copyright in the private sector, individual users, corporate users, educational users, state users of copyright as well as the rights of copyright owners. This is really the heart of copyright legislation - how do you balance competing interests to strike a balanced regime that promotes and protects the interest of copyright owners, and at the same time does not hinder the dissemination of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge and eventually the advancement of our national interest.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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