Parliament Saves Broadcasting from Copyright Injunction

Radio Record, Volume II, Issue 13, 12 October 1928, Unnumbered Page

Parliament Saves Broadcasting from Copyright Injunction

Full Analysis of Position Vital to Listeners

N the dying hours of the Session there was introduced a brief measure called "The Copyright (Temporary) Amendment Bill’ which has a material bearing upon the interests of broadcasting and listeners. In all probability, by the time this appears in print that Bill will have been passed into law. Had that measure not been passed, listeners would have been confronted with the position, very probably, that broadcasting would have ceased forthwith under Injunction from the Supreme Court. It is fortunate in the interests of listeners that Parliament was able to act in time, and that the Government so fully appreciated the need for immediately protecting the interests of the public.

"HE Copyright (Temporary) Amend- , ment Bill,’ as introduced to the House by the Attorney-General, the Hon. F. J. Rolleston, makes a material alteration in the Copyright law as it stands. The measure is but temporary, and designed to operate only till August of next year, at which time a comprehensive measure embodying the recommendations to be brought forward by Mr. S. G. Raymond, K.C. (New Zealand’s representative at the Rome Conference on Copyright), will be submitted. Under the Copyright law as it stands, the right to permit or prohibit the broadcasting or the public performance of any musical number is vested wholly and solely in the author or his assignees, and he or they can impose any terms in connection with the permission. That law as it stands, while designed to protect the rights of ownership of the author, contains the possibility of injustice to the public, in that unreasonable demands might be made. In the cireumstances that have arisen as applying to New Zealand, it is contended that such is now the case; consequently the measure just introduced aims to protect the public from unreasonable demands and pro hibitions by providing that the Broad. casting Company shall set up a fund into

which shall be paid a sum to be determined by the Government from time to time, but not exceeding 7% per cent. of its gross revenue from listeners. This fund shall be, in effect, a Copyright Fund, and shall be administered by a Board to be established. Persons claiming the copyright of items performed will then have the opportunity of applying to the administrators of this fund,

proving their copyright, and being awarded such sum as may be agreed upon in respect of the copyright from the fund. This legislation completely reverses for the time being the existing copyright law. The old practice was that copyright was wholly vested in the author or his or her assigns, and that in the event of any dispute, the onus of proof that copyright did not apply rested upon the performer (or Broadcasting Company in this case). Under the Amending Legislation, the obligation to prove possession of copyright rests with the person making the claim. The Demands Made. (PHE present position in New Zealand is the outcome of protracted negotiations over recent years. It marks a definite milestone in the history of broadcasting and is a definite effort to protect the public from unjust treatment. At the time that the agreement was entered into between the Government and the Broadcasting Company, no thought was given to the question of copyright of the musical items to be performed over the air. That question in fact had not arisen or been approached in any part of the world. -Continned on page 2.

Copyright Issue-Contd. The Company, however, had not begun operating at all before notice was served upon it that a body, calling itself the Musical Copyright Broadcasting Administration claimed copyright in respect of 99 per cent. of the world’s copyright musical numbers, and intimated that, failing compliance with its demands, it would call for an injunction through the Courts of New Zealand to prohibit the Broadcasting Company from performing any of the numbers in respect of which it claimed copyright. As under the existing law the onus would lie upon the Broadcasting Company in any dispute, to prove that no copyright was held in respect of the particular number or numbers claimed, the company was forced by stress of circumstances to enter into an agreement in August of 1926 to pay the Australasian Performing Rights Association (as it had now become entitled) the fee demanded, namely 4 per cent of its gross revenue from the first 10,000 receiving licenses, and 8

per cent. on all subsequent licenses, plus a ten per cent. increase for every 1500 items above a given number. This agreement was to extend to August of 1927, and under it the association agreed to make available to the Broadcasting Company (1) a list of the works desired to be reserved from performance, being not more than five per cent. of its total, and (2) a list of non-copyright works. Because of non-compliance with these clauses in the original agreement, difficulties arose in the negotiations of a second agreement to follow the first. In the proposed second agreement the association claimed 6 per cent. of the gross revenue received from listeners for the first 45,000 copyright items, plus an increase of ten per cent. for every additional 15,000 items used or repeated. In an effort to enforce fulfilment of conditions agreed to and undertakings

given, the Broadcasting Company, as from February last has withheld the payments it formerly made to the association. This retention of moneys had the ultimate effect of causing the association to apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the Broadcasting Company from broadcasting musical numbers in respect of which it claimed copyright. This injunction was set down for hearing on October 9, and under the law as it stood the Supreme Court may have been compelled to grant that injunction. Listeners wiil therefore see that, had Parliament not acted, there might have been a sudden cessation of the broadcasting service.

Review of Copyright. N the issue of the "Radio Record" for July 29, 1927, there was published a very comprehensive review of the copyright position. That summary detailed the history of the copyright law, and set out how its original purpose of protecting the author in its rights of ownership had been modified in respect of the rights to mechanically reproduce music (such as by gramophones and pianolas),in order to protect the public from an undue deprivation of. musical and artistic numpers. This modification of the then law was effected in 1911, to meet the position which at that time arose in relation to gramophones and’ pianolas. The owners of copyright rightly contended that their work should not be used without reward. On the other hand, those interested in the reproduction of musical works by mechan-

ical means, whilst recognising that — some remuneration was due to the > composers whose work was so used, nevertheless contended that if composers were allowed to use unlimited powers to either permit or prohibit reproduction of their works, a monopoly prejudicial to them and the public would be created in the most popular works. Accordingly in 1909 there had been introduced in the United States a provision giving the right of compulsorily acquiring licenses to reproduce musical works by mechanical means upon payment of a fixed royalty. Following on this controversy, a clause was inserted in the English Act providing that a musical composer, in the event of his having granted a license to one petson to reproduce his work mechanically, should be compelled to grant to any other person a like license for reproduction upon the payment of a stipulated royalty. This provision was extended to New Zealand in the amendment of the Copyright law which was made in 1913. Unfortunately, at that

time broadcasting was not on the public horizon; consequently, in the amendment of the law to _ protect gramophones and pianolas no provision was made for any further development in such a field as broadcasting. On the initiation of broadcasting, no concern was expressed regarding copyright for some time; but eventually the question did arise as to the copyright position in relation to musical numbers broadeast. On this point it is well to bear in mind that the law requires no formal procedure prior to the granting of copyright. No registration of a musical work, art work, or document is necessary. This is designed to protect people of poor means, and extend to them the rights of ownership in such distinctly personal property. From the broadcaster’s point of view, therefore, the position arises that there is no central office or organisation established by law from which he can ascertain what number is or is not copyright. The law provides that copyright obtains for the lifetime of the author and for 50 years after his death. State of the Law. N the question arising in New Zealand through the approaches of the

Australasian Performing Rights Association, Limited, and investigation being made, it was found that the law indicated :- (1) The broadcasting of copyright musical works is an. infringement of the copyright therein; (2) That the author or assignee of such copyright works has the absolute right to permit or prohibit their performance in public; (8) That registration is unnecessary to confer copyright, thus making it impracticable to discriminate between copyright and non-copyright works. From the practical point of view, therefore, the Broadcasting Company was faced with the position that to carry on its business it had to broadcast musical numbers, and in ‘doing so would seem to have to break the law.

What is the Association? In those circumstances the demands of the Australasian Performing Rights Association, claiming to possess in its own right and by association, the copyyight of 98 per cent. of the musical numbers of the world, had to be met. lhe history of the association is that it was formed in January, 1926, and embodied originally the leading musical publishers of Sydney and Melbourne. Tt became affiliated with similar societies or organisations with different titles in England, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and other countries. The rights of each member are centralised by the rules of the organisation. i

The association claimed that tle members of the association are the owners, or agents for the owners, of practically all the British copyright music published, or to be published, in Australia or New Zealand; secondly, that the various foreign associations affiliated with it control practically the whole of the copyright music published in their respective countries ; thirdly, that the copyright controlled by all Australian and New Zealand publishing agents is assigned to it; fourthly, that the members of the association are the owners in Australia and New Zealand, or agents for practically all the American and British Dominions’ musical copyright published or to be published; so that in effect it controlled 98 per cent. of the world’s copyright music. Failing amendment to the law, the Broadcasting Yompany was thus bound to yield to the demands of the association, or else cease for all practicable purposes to transmit musical copyright matter. Under the law as it gtood, the association was entitled to demand what it liked from the Broadcasting Company, and failing compliance, could apply to and secure from the Courts of the land an injunction prohibiting the proadeasting of copyright music controlled by the association.

Need For Amendment. PPHE contrast between this position and that established in 1911 for the protection of the then new industries of the gramophone and pianola will be apparent. to listeners. The common-sense procedure obviously would be to alter the law somewhat on the lines of granting the same protection to broadcasting as Was extended to the manufacturers of mechanical music. The question of such amending legislution was discussed with the Government in 1926, and substantially the

same measure as is now before the House was drawn up and discussed then. As it happened, however, an International Convention on the quesbe held in Rome from May 7 till June 2 of 1928. The Government thergfore deemed it wise in the interests: of the public to withhold action in 1926 and 1927, pending the decisions of this International Convention, at which it was hoped unanimity of action would be determined upon in relation to a number of questions. A delegate from New Zealand was arranged for in the person of Mr. S. G. Raymond, K.C,, A report from him has been received, © and it is understood that he is now, or shortly will be, on his way to New . Zealand, bringing with him certain re- . commendations for the amendment of the existing law in this country. It is. for that reason that legislation was not -. introduced earlier than it has been. tion of copyright had been arranged to }

The Rome Conference and Broadeasting. ROM a newspaper review of the pro- 7 ceedings of the conference, it is understood that an important new article, drafted and agreed to, recognises. that authors have the exclusive right to authorise the radio diffusion of their work, but that it is the duty — of the national legislature of the — different countries belonging to the Copyright Union to determine the |. conditions under which that right

should be exercised. It is suggested that, failing that friend- . ly agreement, a just remuneration should be determined by a competent authority. The subject of broadcasting, it is understood, aroused a considerable amount of discussion. The British delegates adopted a strong attitude, and emphasised the importance of the con--ference taking a definite stand in re- : gard to broadcasting. One of the rules of the convention, however, is that unanimity must be reached before radical alterations are made in the convention. Consequently, in the absence of such unanimity, no amendment was actually made, but it appeared to be generally accepted that there was an inherent right in the Legislature of each country to carry measures to reconcile the exclusive rights of an author with the public interest. It was. expressed that, while it might not be a matter of public importance if any individual author withheld the broadcasting rights of his work, anything in the nature of a general boycott by authors linked together would be opposed to public interest.

Substantially the same considerations were advanced in the discussion upon performing rights. In most countries, it was outlined, these rights are looked after by one society for the purposes of collecting fees, and the methods of some of these societies provoked a certain amount of criticsm. It was reported that difficulties had arisen owing to the concentration these performing rights in the ha of individual bodies. While the. performing rights of composers and authors were recognised, it was agreed that countries had the right to legis-"* late in the public interest, if they were of opinion that the erercise of rights given to authors in accordance with the convention was being ecar-

ried -to an extreme contrary to the public interest. ; From this summary of the discusions bearing upon broadcasting it ill: be seen that the convention recognised the sovereignty of each country to determine the copyright law as between: the individual owner and the interests of the public. That is the position that has arisen in New Zealand, and that is the stand taken by the Legislature in its amendment to protect public interest. The Methods Employed. T will be noticed that the discussion at Rome mentioned the methods _of some of the performing rights associations. This fitly leads to: consideration of the detailed trouble that has arisen between the .New Zealand Broadcasting Company and the Australasian Performing Rights Association. A full outline of the difficulties that have been experienced by the Broadcasting Company in its negotiations regarding copyright is impossible, owing to the limitations of space. It is, however, safe to say that listeners can have no conception of the amount of trouble that has been occasioned and the detail work inflicted upon the company by reason of copyright restrictions. which ‘were unthought of at the time when the company entered into its agreement with the Government. All listeners have naturally desired the performance of _ that special music in which they were in-

terested, ‘he tact that such Music Was not given them has frequently been the subject of criticism. That criticism should be directed, not against the Broadcasting Company, but against the copyright restrictions which prevented the company from fully meeting the popular demand. In March last, following on the decision of the Broadcasting Company to ‘withhold payment of copyright fees pending the negotiation of a satisfactory second agreement and the fulfil: ment of the terms of the first agreement, the Broadcasting Company wrote a very full letter to the association in Sydney, outlining the difficulties experienced by the company in the transaction of its business. This letter set out that the position in New Zealand "is rapidly becoming impossible," and outlined in considerable detail the difiiculties experienced by the company. Finally it was advised that payment would be withheld until reasonable explanation was given as to the non-ful-filment of essential clauses in the first agreement. . How Mueh is Controlled? N the first agreement it was set out that the association controlled 98 per cent. of the world’s musical copyright; but in the second agreement proposed to be negotiated the association desired this clause to be removed as "You will understand that we cannot guarantee that we control exactly 98 per cent. of the world copyright music." In reply to this, the company intimated that it was not agreeable to this clause being waived: thet both personally and in . edtrespondence the association had maintained that it did in fact control 98 per cent. of the world’s musicai . copyright; and in, those circumstances pine company, while admitting that the } contention had proved in fact to be of little value. maintained that it should be inserted in the agreement. The company went on to point out that, although the arrangement be-

tween the association and the company — had been in operation for eighteen | months, and although repeated de--mands for a catalogue of the works — controlled by the association had ‘been made, such definite information had so far not been supplied. Under the agreement it was provided that the company should render to the association records of the musical numbers broadcast by it, and the association undertook that it would then return to the company a certified copy of each such list, with the works marked on it in respect of which payment was claimed. The company pointed out that, in spite of repeated demands being made for the return of such certified lists, not one had ever been returned, but various excuses had been advanced for failures to do so, the culminating point being, after eighteen months agitation, that the association demanded the provision of carbon copies of these lists, although no such demand had. ever previously been made. "Under the circumstances," the letter said, "we do not think you can blame us for feeling that the suggestion is simply a further excuse for delaying the supply of information that one would imagine your association would be only too happy to furnish if, in fact, it possessed copyright to anything like the extent of its representations." Outline of Difficulties. FTER discussing in detail various amendments, the letter, which was «é

written for the company Dy 1%S Solicitor, went on as follows :- "T, One of the principal sources of trouble as between your association and our client company is the position of certain operas and musical comedies. "In the course of the correspondence some of these operas were referred to, and in your letter to our clients of the 21st October last you claimed that 95 per cent. of the works mentioned were free for performance, the performing ‘rights of these works being vested in your association. "These free performances, however, apparently referred only to detached instrumental numbers of the operas concerned, and on procuring the scores our clients found on one score the following notice printed on the cover by the publishers :- "‘Al]l performing rights in this opera are reserved. Certain detached numbers may be sung at concerts, no more than two at one concert, but they must be given without stage costume or action. In no case must such performance be announced as a "selection" from the opera. Application for right of performing the above opera must be made to Mr. George Edwards, Daly’s Theatre, London.’ "On another score is printed the following :-- "*All rights of reproduction, translation, and performance of this opera are reserved. Certain detached numbers may be sung. at concerts, but without action or costune, and such performance must not be announced as a selection from the opera. All applications with regard to the performing rights in this opera should be addressed to the publishers.’ "In view of these notices on the published editions of the operas, one appears to be justified in assuming that

the statement in your letter of the 31st October, that ‘the performing right in these works is vested in the association,’ is not strictly correct, and that with regard to some at least of these works our client company is not receiving anything in return for the payment made by it to the asciation. "II. Your association has up to the present done little, if anything, of real value towards carrying out its obligations with regard to the following matters, namely: "(1) It has not supplied a list of non-copyright works. "As you know, repeated requests have been made to your association to supply a catalogue of the works it controls. One would imagine that, where an association is collecting large sums of money from broadcasting companies on the ground that it controls 98 per cent. of the world’s copyright, it would have no hesitation in supplying a list of its ‘goods’ to the persons from whom it was levying tribute. "Notwithstanding repeated requests in this connection, your association has made it clear that it is unable to supply such a eatalogue, making the excuse that such a catalogue would be of enormous proportions. "Having regard to the fact that it is admitted that a great deal of music is not subject to copyright, such a contention does not entirely carry conviction. "It, however, became abundantly clear to our client company that the chances of securing such a catalogue from your association in the near future were extremely remote. Your association then offered to supply a list of non-copyright works, which it was represented were not more than two per cent. of the world’s copyright. "The matter was pressed by us at the conference which we held with your representatives in October last, when the best undertaking we could obtain was that you would within three months from that date supply to our client company ‘as far as is reasonably

possible a list of non-copyright works.’ "So far, notwithstanding repeated requests, nothing further has eventuated, and the supplying of this list appears to be no nearer than it was when the matter was first mentioned during the currency of the previous agreement. (2) It has failed to supply a list of the reserved musical works. "Both in the previous agreement and in the draft present agreement, your association undertook to supply to our client company a list of the musical works reserved by it which it was agreed should not exceed five per cent. of the total number of works under its control. No such list has ever been supplied, nor, as far as we can see, is it likely to be supplied. "From time to time intimation has been received by our client company tc the effect that certain specified works have been reserved, but no comprehensive statement on this matter has been made. (3) Your association has failed fo return to our client company. a

copy of the certified lists with the works in respect of which payment is claimed clearly marked under the hand of a responsible officer of your association. "This matter was referred to by us when dealing with your suggested alterations. The information has never come to hand, and after pressing for it for months our clients met with the suggestion above-mentioned about carbon copies, which we think fully merits the comment we have previously made about it. , "Our clients find that with the number of concerts for which they are responsible during the year, they must maintain a large and up-to-date library. This in turn, means indenting their music. They have already taken steps to collect a library, but the position is becoming almost impossible, owing to the lack of information with respect to the musie controlled by your association which they would be entitled to broadcast in terms of their agreement with your association. "It has been found that a considerable amount of the music purchased is useless to our client company, as after purchase it is found that the right of the public performance has been reserved by the publishers under one condition or another." "Impossible to Continue." IiI. "It appears to us that matters have now arrived at the stage that it is impossible te continue the business relationship with your association on satisfactory terms, unless your association at once makes 2 frank and clear statement as to the whole position. "As above mentioned, your association has always represented that it held 98 per cent. of the world’s copyright, and that it would not reserve from production more than five per cent. of this 98 per cent. "If your association now finds that its claims. have been grossly exaggerated, surely it should not hesitate to say so, but should act in a frank and businesslike way in disclosing to its licensees its actual position. "We desire you to take this letter as a formal demand for the following information, namely :-

(1) A copy of your association’s catalogue of the copyright works controlled by it. If the compilation of a complete catalogue has never been attempted by your association, or is a task beyond its capacity, then we sug- | gest that our clients should immediately receive a copy of such partial catalogue as is in your possession. No doubt you have amongst your records a complete list showing the positior: of the copyright of all recent and new publications. (2) A list of the works of which you hold the copyright, but which you desire to reserve. (3) A list of non-copyright works. "When supplying the above information, our clients desire in particular to have a full and clear statement as to the position of :- (1) Operas. (2) Comic operas. (3) Musical comedies. both with regard to the right of performing vocal and instrumental separate items, and as to the right of per-

formance of these works in whole or in part. — "In each case we would, if possible, like to know in whom the control of these works is vested, if it is not vested in your association, and as to what is the position with regard to these works in Australia as compared with New Zealand. Different Editions. "We should be grateful if you would at the same time let us know what is the position with regard to different editions of the same opera. Our clients are under the impression that the copyright of the original edition of an opera may be vested in your association, but this might not be the case with regard to a revised edition by another publisher who has, perhaps, made slight alterations, and the question is, therefore, whether the copyright applies with equal force to all publications. "You are probably aware of the fact that’ occasions have not infrequently arisen where our clients, having in contemplation the performance of some musical work, have endeavoured to obtain from your association an early reply as to whether or not such work is under your control, but such infor- mation has in some cases been unduly delayed, and in other cases has not proved to be entirely accurate. You will, of course, readily recognise that such a state of affairs makes the proper working of our clients’ operations extremely difficult. "We must apologise if we have been guilty of a certain amount of repetition, but, without desiring to be in any way offensive, we sincerely trust that this letter will have the effect of dispersing the air of mystery which ap-

pears to surround the rights which your association claims to possess." Too Heavy a Fee Demanded. [t is contended by the company that the payment of 6 per cent. of its total revenue from listeners for copyright purposes is an unwarranted imposition on listeners-that it is exacting to big a payment for too small a service. A fairer basis, it is contended, would be assessment of a proportion of the money spent in respect of entertainment, not upon the gross revenue of the company. The greater part of the company’s revenue is necessarily spent in providing equipment to put music on the air. The actual performance itself does not involve the major expenditure. Assessment on this basis would, it is contended, be fully equitable to the owners of copyright, and be more in accord with the value received by broadcasting and listeners from such performances.

N America the position is much simpler than in New Zealand. It is understood that the commercial proadeasting stations there compromise with the owners of copyright on the basis of a lump annual sum, without the detail work involved in the New Zealand system. This is definitely much more equitable and economic than the system established by the Australasian Performing Rights’ Association. In the meantime the legislation outlined has saved any break in the broadcasting service, and it remains to be seen just what amendments are proposed in 1929. The guiding principle must be, we think, the conservation of the public interest. That copyright should be preserved, and that the author should be protected, is only fair and equitable. No one wishes to transgress upon those individual rights, but those individual rights must be preserved and operated with some regard to the public good, and broadcasting definitely is a case for treatment on a basis similar to that given to manufacturers of gramophones and pianolas. They are entitled to the copyright of any music by payment on a royalty basis upon 5 per cent. of the retail value of the goods. They supply a definite concrete article to the public: broadcasting supplies a service. It seems unfair that broadcasting should be mulcted of a sum vastly greater in copyright fees than that paid in respect of gramophone records, which can be repeated indefinitely for the one payment.

Position in Australia. Thé Royal Commission on Wireless, which sat in Australia recently, dealt with the copyright question in the following manner :- Copyright and Performing Rights. [\ this investigation we have confined our attention solely to the law of copyright so far as it affects broadcasting by radio. Although the validity of copyright as applied to broadcasting has been questioned in evidence tendered to this Commission, we deem such questions outside the scope of the terms of reference entrusted to us by His Excellency the Governor-General, and have, therefore, assumed its validity. It is also assumed, for the purposes of this report, that under the present law the owners of copyright works are entitled to payment of royalties from per-

sons broadcasting such copyright works. Bvidence has been given by representatives of the Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, which association claims to control 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of modern musical public: ations. Fividence has also been given by representatives of the various broadeasting stations throughout Australia, who deposed to the amounts paid by "A" and "B" class broadcasting station to the Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, in respect of royalties on copyright publications alleged to belong to the said association. HE Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, is associatel by agreement with a number of similar bodies in other parts of the world, and the procedure adopted by the Australasian Association resembles, more or less closely, that pursued in other countries.

After much dissatisfaction had been expressed by the broadcasting companies with the demands made by the Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, for copyright royalties, and after a series of adjustments of charges, the Commonwealth Government called a conference of representatives of interests concerned, which met on July 28, 1926. As a result of this conference an agreement was arrived at, the effect of which was, shortly, that the Copyright Association should receive 10 per cent. of the revenue of the broadcasting stations in respect of the first 100,000 licenses issued in Australia and 5 per cent. in respect of any licenses in excess of the 100,000 issued in Australia. The latest proposal submitted by this company is that the copyright royalty should be at the rate of 74 per cent. of the total revenue, irrespective of the number of licenses issued.

ROM the latest returns available to the Commission the average yearly revenue of all the "A" Class broadcasting stations during the two years ended June 30, 1927, was £206,954 (approximately). Five per centum of this amount represents £10,347 (approximately). In the opinion of the Commission the revenue is likely to contiinue to increase. With regard to "B" Class stations the position does not seem to be so definite. Apparently the Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, has discriminated in its demands between those "B" Class stations which are deriving revenue by means of advertising from those "B" Class stations which receive no such revenue. The nature of the demands of this association may be illustrated by reference to the fact that in the case of one "B" Class station, the Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, first demanded 3s. 6d. per copyright item broadcast. Gradually the claim was reduced to less than one-tenth of the original claim. Demand Exorbitant. In view of all the circumstances, the amount of the license fees which ultimately reached the hands of the Australasian Performing Right Association, Limited, is, in our opinion, out of proportion to the service rendered or value given by the association, or the author whom they represent, and is an advantage that in the majority of instances was never contemplated as likely to belong to either the

author or composer or the assignee of the copyright. According to the latest figures in our possession relating to the practice in England, the proportion of total reyenue paid by broadcasting stations in Australia is more than double that: néid in the former country. E are of opinion that authors and composers derive considerable benefit from the broadcasting of their works, and the publicity so given broadly counterbalances any loss on sales of sheet music. Bvidence has been placed before the Commission showing that in the case of some firms which admittedly did not eater particularly for what is called ‘nopular music," there had been a slight falling off over a series of years. We are not satisfied, however, that such falling off will be permanent, nor that it is occasioned by broadcasting. Further, the Commission endeavoured to secure evidence from firms who were vendors on a large scale of "popular music,’ but they intimated through counsel that there had not been any serious falling off in their sales.

Y OUR Commissioners recommend, therefore :- (1) That persons broadcasting copyright musical works should be made liable to pay royalties to the owners of the copyright. (2) That the principles of section 19 of the British Copyright Act,. 1911, Act 1 and 2, George V, Chapter 46, as expressed in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Copyright Act, 1912 (Appendix No. 1), should be extended to the broadcasting of copyright musical works by radio. (3) That, inasmuch as by section 19 of the British Copyright Act, 1911, the royalty allowed to be charged (or demanded) is based upon the ' ordinary retail selling price of the contrivance used in the publication, and this, of course, cannot be directly applied to broadcasting, some other basis must be adopted. (4) That the Commonwealth representative at the International Conference should advocate that, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, a limitation be placed on the royalty chargeable for broadcasting copyright musical works as follows :- (a) In the case of broadcasting stations receiving revenue from license fees, five per centum of the gross revenue of the broadcasting station, or, alternatively, at the option of the owner of the copyright, fourpence per _ performance of each musical work. (b) In the case of broadcasting stations not receiving revenue from license fees, fourpence per performance of each musical work. (c) In both cases (a) and (b) no limitation should be placed on the number of copyright items which the Broadcasting Com‘pany may broadcast. (For the purpose of sub-claitye (a), gross revenue will, in the ease of broadcasting stations within the Commonwealth, be deemed to include any proportion of license fees, otherwise due to the broadcasting stations, but which are for any . reason withheld by the Postmaster-Gen-eral.)