I move—

seconded.

Motion put; and a division was called for.

On a point of order, my experience some years ago in asking leave to move that Order No. So-and-so should be set down for another day, was that it had to be moved as an unopposed motion, and a single objection prevented the motion being put.

The rule has been altered.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—53.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O, R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—58.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

seconded.

Motion put; upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

lie Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rider, W. W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—43.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R, W.

Deane, W. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 24th February, on Clause 1.]

When this Bill was considered last the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) made certain remarks. As hon. members know, there is an International Treaty between us and other countries, and the hon. member represented this Bill as being in conflict with that treaty. In the second place, the hon. member wanted to make out that a certain company would be much benefitted by a Bill of this kind and that the House should disapprove of it. The hon. member was wrong on both points, and it is necessary for me to shortly deal with the legal side of the matter. I do not want the House to be under the impression that a contravention of the treaty is taking place. A conference was held in Berne in 1886 and I just want to deal with one clause that was passed there, viz., the one, that if anyone wants copyright in a foreign country which is a member of the conference, he need only concern himself with the laws of the country of origin, in other words, if a piece of German music is to obtain copyright in South Africa, then the person need only concern himself with the copyright law of Germany. Shortly afterwards a movement arose in France that if anyone wanted copyright for a foreign thing, he should only have regard to the laws of the country of origin without considering our laws. England did not share that view, but in 1896, at the conference of Paris, what was known as the “Declaration of Paris,” and from 1896 to 1908, the position was that if anyone wanted copyright in a foreign country he should only be concerned with the laws in the country of origin. England, however, did not sign the declaration, because England stood by the position—and the English law is also our law—that if copyright is applied for in a country the question of recourse and procedure which are valid in the country where the copyright is sought shall indeed be taken into consideration. In 1908 a further conference took place in Berlin, and the whole policy was altered and the English view adopted. Clause 4 of the Treaty of 1908 lays down that when anybody seeks copyright he shall confine himself to the laws of the country where it is being applied for. In the second place, it lays down that such a country shall have the fullest rights in respect of legal proceedings for infringements. It did not remain at that, and by the Act of 1912 (No. 20), Australia laid down that any person desiring copyright or right of performing music in Australia, could only ask for it when it was registered.

You are wrong.

In the law there are certain legal remedies which can only be employed if it is registered there.

Only criminal registration.

The principle is the same. There is the obligation to register there to get certain rights. In New Zealand there are the same regulations. Canada, however, has gone further. According to the Act of the 1st January, 1924, no action can be instituted according to law, unless the rights are registered. There has already been a test case between the Canadian Performing Rights Company, and a musical society there, and the former lost the case. They asked for an interdict and damages because the theatrical people performed music, but the decision was that no action lay because it was not registered, and the Court of Appeal upheld that. If it is legal there, and no contravention of the treaty, how can it then be said that it will be so here. It is precisely the same position. We have to do here with the protection of people, of performers and orchestras against a very big body, namely, the Performing Rights Society, which is registered in England. They get a lot of money out of this country for the right of performance. Hon. members must not confuse copyright with performing right. Of course, the copyright remains unaffected. If I buy a piece of music I can play it, but not have it reprinted. Now we have a big company asking all people who perform music in public to pay without it making any difference whether it is performed by a particularly talented artist or a person of lesser talent. We know that in performances it often depends just as much or more on the talent of the performer as on the writer. Every hall-owner in the Union is now asked to pay an annual amount to the Performing Rights Society or otherwise get into trouble if music were performed in such a hall. Take a small village. There is a hall and the owner is asked to pay £3, £4 or £10 a year. The trouble is that the Performing Rights Society does not say on what works they have representation rights. They simply allow performances in such a hall, and then come and say “You performed such and such a piece of which we hold the rights and you must pay a fine.” Every café, restaurant, hotel, in short, where-ever music is performed, must pay. Since this Bill was introduced they have acted a little less sharply, but if the Bill lapses that large body will be able to ask as much as it pleases.

They have the rights over the music.

Just like a labourer to his wage. We do not take away the copyright. The right to demand damages if your rights are encroached upon is left if you can prove that damage has been suffered.

How can one prove that?

Let me take the opposite case. Every time I perform a man’s music I advertise it. That will induce people to buy it. If a well-known singer sings the music of a person in South Africa, he advertises it, and the composer will do good business with it. Now money has to be paid for the performance. Mr. Schlesinger has to pay between £400 and £500 a year to the Performing Rights Society. He can manage to do it because he then has all the rights, but what of the small municipalities? There often are, in a small village, three or four players who perform a little music and give a great deal of pleasure by their performances as well as teaching music. There is a small orchestra in nearly every small village. They play at dances, etc., and everywhere that they play in public a certain sum has to be paid to the society, and how many more of these bodies will there be? We know that already there are the Canadian Performing Society and the English Association, and I have a letter here from a firm in England that has notified the local Broadcasting Service that they are owners of a certain number of pieces of music, and that they give notice that the Broadcasting Company will have to pay for certain music they are broadcasting. I have the minutes of the select committee here. We had tariffs fixed by the company in England before us. There are tariffs for a pier, for hotels, halls, pavilion, tea rooms, restaurants, etc. The society acts as if it were a Government, and issues instructions as it thinks fit. We all acknowledge that music is in the public interest. The number of South African composers that are performed here, and live here, is very insignificant, and they sell their rights. I doubt whether 3 per cent. of the composers do not sell their copyright to the publishers.

They sell the copyright, but not the “royalty.”

Now all the owners of halls must pay an annual amount. If £5 is paid for a small ball, e.g., in Christiana, which of the composers will get it?

It is divided.

About £4,000 is obtained from South Africa every year, and I should like to know how much of it goes to South African composers. A large institution like Schlesinger only pays £400.

£1,000.

No, between £400 and £500.

That does not include the amount for broadcasting.

Only £400 comes from the Schlesinger group, the rest from other sources, from the small halls, small villages, etc. We pay the money which is spent in England and Germany, and how much do our composers get? The composers here also favour the Bill.

When I first came across this business I agreed with the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). I thought that was a trust trying to extract money from South Africa. The Performers’ Rights Society is not a trust or monopoly, but a co-operative rights society to protect what the law has given them. They have certain copyright rights. How would a composer in Germany, France or England protect his right in South Africa if he could not co-operate with the people here. We should be honest on this question. If this Bill goes through, we are only pretending to preserve to the composers their performing rights. The hon. member is quite wrong in saying that the Australian law says that they demand registration [Law 26 of the Australian law read]. If you want to seize pirated works, it allows you to prosecute criminally, but only in special cases have you to register. I ask why our Copyright Act says “may” register? Because the Berlin treaty lays down that it shall be optional. Law 59 in our own country says this [quotation read]. Our law, therefore, has left the door open. I doubt if any of our music has been registered. Assuming this Bill passes, and we force every composer to register, how is it going to operate as notice to the performers? The present system of notifying performers by circular is far more efficient notice that they are infringing the copyright than any notice in the Deeds Office. Are performers going to keep a long list in Pretoria which they must search to see if they are infringing a copyright. Songs are evanescent things and who is going to keep the record of 40, 50 or 100 of them arriving every week? Who will register them in Pretoria? It is impossible. This Bill makes it impossible for the performers to give notice. Take bioscopes, we give them by law the right and we say you must give a week’s notice before they can take proceedings. How, in practice, are you going to give a man a week’s notice? To-night a party is performing at Christiana. To-morrow, that party goes on to Bloemhof, and it proceeds on circuit. How, in practice, are you going to give these people notice? No composer who owns a copyright can possibly comply with this law. I have been looking through the report of the select committee, and, as far as I can find, no single witness has denied the composer’s right to royalty on performances, but they took this view, that while they admitted that the composer was entitled to his rights and royalties, it was unfair to them because they did not know which were copyright and which were not. I admit there is force in that, but I say that this Bill is not going to remedy that position. I would put it to the Minister of Justice that if this Bill passes as it stands, it is going to infringe Section 8 of the British Copyright Act in the schedule to our Act, it is going to infringe Section 159 of our own Act, and it is going to infringe Section 144 of our Act, which says that any alteration of this nature should be done by the Governor-General by proclamation. I admit there is some force in the argument that a performer, or a company like the African Theatres Trust are entitled to know exactly where they stand. They say “we cannot be expected to pay money for some nebulous asset.” Registration in the companies office is not going to operate as notice. I am prepared to meet that point by moving—

That will operate as a far more effective notice to the people concerned than this idea of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) of going and registering in Pretoria. I admit that notice should be given. I would go further and say that no single performer in this country has ever been called upon, or interfered with except after he has received notice that these things are copyright. I submit that my amendment is a far more effective notice to performers, that certain compositions are copyright, than this idea of registration. To go and ask a composer or an author to go to Pretoria or employ an attorney for that purpose and pay a guinea to have a song registered is out of the question. There will be hundreds of thousands of songs on this list if this law goes through. I ask the hon. member, is it practicable? I would like to meet the hon. gentleman’s view, especially as expressed in committee. There is some force in the contention that people are entitled to know exactly what is copyright and what is not, but I hold, and I think it is a fair view, that this amendment of mine will operate as notice of copyright.

When the member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) introduced the Bill I thought the provisions were unjust. At the second reading I spoke against the Bill and, in consequence, I was put on the select committee to go into the merits of the case. I had hardly commenced hearing the evidence before it became clear to me that the hon. member was quite right. A so-called society, registered in England, acquired all the performing rights of certain composers and, now, in my opinion, they are abusing their position. Municipalities and other bodies are notified by the society that they must pay a certain amount every year to it, otherwise it would sue them for infringing their performing rights. When the municipalities asked the society to send them a list of their music or when musical programmes are sent to the society for approval or otherwise they were refused. As a precaution then the municipalities pay the amount demanded of them. Everybody who hires a hall must now contribute to the amounts the society demands. To say that composers would not be protected if the Bill goes through is nonsense. The great composers whose music is reproduced on the gramophone records get their profit from the sale of the records, and nothing more is demanded for performing those records. Why cannot the same method be adopted in the case of music? The composers ought to be satisfied with the profit on the sale of their productions. If your music is of particularly high standard you can make the selling price higher, as is done in the case of gramophone records. If you want to be paid for the performance as well, then you have to see that it is registered; that is all. Personally I think that composers should be satisfied with the sale price, and thankful that musicians play or sing the music because they advertise it. I have no sympathy with the Performing Rights Society. It seems to be a society which speculates on the musical talent of the composers whose rights they have bought up. They make £4,000 a year out of the Union. No wonder that similar societies are now being established to get a hold on the Union and other countries in the same way.

This is a very interesting contest, and I can quite understand now why there are 78 lawyers in the House. I congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) on his altruism, and his wish to stand up for those people so dear to him— the authors and composers. It was really delightful to hear his eloquence in regard to them. So deeply affecting was it that I thought I must really consider the question from that point of view only, but there is a great public interest, apart from parliamentary lawyers, who are splitting hairs. I have taken some trouble to find out what is the position of the composer and author in regard to copyright and performing rights. The author certainly can look after himself all the time. If anyone wants to make a film picture of his book he pretty soon interferes. We need not shed tears over him, although he is dragged into the argument as if his rights were being infringed. All the author requires is that his printed work shall not be printed. Now we come to the composer. Here is this Performing Rights Society, Ltd., ever ready to pounce upon anybody, and it is prepared to guarantee that, so far as it is concerned, the company won’t prosecute anyone who consents to pay, say, £1,000 a year, or some smaller amount of money. In regard to Schlesinger, it is: “If you will pay us £1,000 a year, we guarantee immunity from our interference.” That is about all the “protection” is. The composer, strange to say, is more interested in having his music performed as often as possible than in any other questions relating to it. He will say perfectly honestly that the more his music is performed the better it is for him. What he stands to make money on his royalty in piece music, music for the piano, songs that are printed, and extended sale of copies is what he looks to for reward. He does not need protection from a public or private performer. What he wants is protection from pirating, and he watches that pretty keenly; as soon as he sees a piece of music being sold that his own publisher has not produced, he starts in with an interdict. But the Performing Rights Society desire to jump on the performer so as to exact money from caterers for public amusement. It is perfectly reasonable on the part of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees), whatever interests he may be concerned with defending, to stand up for the performer. Half the time this precious and profitable company does not know whether to control a copyright. They simply try to lead caterers to believe they exercise universal copyright privileges over everything musical. They do not want to be put to the expense and trouble of carrying out their business proposition by retaining a staff of inspection. Do not take this question as the Performing Rights Society v. Schlesinger, but the profit-making Society v. some unfortunate performer. It is all very well for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) to say there is no case on record of any performer being chased and prosecuted, but there is the sword of Damocles all the time over this unfortunate person. I owe nothing to Mr. Schlesinger, and never had even a free pass to his theatres; but I do say he is one of the finest citizens in South Africa, and there is nothing he owns that is not kept up to date. In America they would be thoroughly proud of him and we ought to stand by him, if only on the slogan: “South Africa first.” I hope the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) will not give way on a single point, and will insist that the Performing Rights Society doing its business in a businesslike way, and say what it really protects—put into force only what it has a right to do. I am glad to hear that the Performing Rights Society is at last paying something to some composers. I would like to see the accounts and a list of those who are receiving substantial sums. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) said about one widow receiving £40 a year from this source; it is wonderful!

This, of course, is a very difficult matter; there is no doubt about that; probably if the Performing Rights people had dealt only with the big people in the business in the country nothing would have been heard of it in this House. Where the matter was brought to my notice was in connection with the municipalities. They were all up in arms, and communicated with me. The police band could at any time be attacked by this association and money taken out of them. A large number of small people could also be attacked. There is, of course, a lot to be said for the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). The only trouble, I think, in connection with his amendment is it is also giving notice in a kind of omnibus way, and we would probably find that before any breaches occur a round robin would be sent to all people who give performances in the country, and a pamphlet with thousands of pieces, and these pamphlets may escape attention at a later stage. I thought there might be a simple way out of the difficulty which meets the hon. member’s point, which is an important one. I move, as an amendment—

There are two points which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) made—the expense of ephemeral musical productions—there may be matters not copyrighted in the country from which they come. Instead of that expense being incurred, put on the face of it “public performance prohibited.” Naturally, when there is consent there is no trouble about that. Copyright means public performance prohibited, and also that there is a fee paid in connection with that. What I am trying to meet is the argument that it is unfair to force a man to pay £21 for every piece he registers. By “public performance prohibited” he gets the same right, and does not pay any fee whatever. That suggestion might meet the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). His amendment is, perhaps, too wide, although we all feel that something ought to be done in that direction. I think there should be some legislation on this matter; I think that is fairly obvious.

Why not the word “restricted”? That would cover a wider field.

I am not wedded to the language. The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is in such wide terms that it might defeat its own object.

When the Bill was before the House for the first time in 1926, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) at once moved that it should be read a second time in six months. But as he received certain information in the House he was magnanimous enough to admit that he knew little about the Bill and he, therefore, withdrew his motion. The Bill was then on the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) sent to a select committee. That select committee enquired into the Bill, and they now warmly recommend that the Bill should be proceeded with. When the Bill was before the House last time the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) moved to report progress without leave to sit again and, in that way, he wanted to deprive us of the opportunity of talking about the Bill. Fortunately the Bill has come up for discussion again to-day. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has convinced me that I ought to vote in favour of the Bill. He admitted when it came up last time that the Schlesinger Company thought that they saw something good in that Performing Rights Society and that Mr. Schlesinger would like to extend his control over them. The hon. member, therefore, admitted that it is something good; we know that Mr. Schlesinger always finds something good, and that he would not hesitate to get hold of it if he saw a chance. I can understand that he would like to get hold of their rights. The right is used, and let me here use hard words—to exploit the municipalities and, through them, the municipal ratepayers. If the Bill is passed an end will be put to that unreasonable extortion. There is another point. I know from experience that those people enter into contracts with those municipalities to pay a certain amount for the performing rights. It runs from £5 to £200.

They do not pay it.

Yes, it is a fact. The municipalities have to pay a fixed amount, but whose pockets does it come out of? It is the municipal ratepayers who must pay the amount to indemnify the municipality from prosecution for contravening the Copyright Act. I hope the Bill will be passed as it stands. I have a resolution here from the Municipal Association in the Free State requesting that the Bill be passed, and I also have various letters asking me to use every endeavour to put an end to that position. I do not stand here to decide who is to have the right to exploit municipalities. I do not stand here to say whether it shall be the Schlesinger group or the Performing Rights Society. I am here to see that neither get it. As stated, I am going to vote for the Bill. I could not very well follow the amendment proposed, but if they meet the demand of preventing the exploitation, then I will agree to them, but if not, I stand by the Bill as drawn. I said in 1926 that I was the last man in the House to take away existing rights. The rights are possibly fixed abroad, and we do not like taking them away, but I have my duty towards my constituents and I will fulfil it to the last. I cannot see how I can vote against the Bill after having seen resolutions like those from municipalities. The Performing Rights Society has forced the municipalities to make contracts and they went so far as to threaten to prosecute municipalities who make contracts and they went so far as to threaten to prosecute municipalities who did not do so if pieces of which they had the copyright, were performed in the Town Hall. What happens usually when one wants to hire the Town Hall? He goes to the Town Clerk and hires it for a certain night, but no one knows what is going to happen, whether there will be singing or playing or something else. If then the man contravenes the copyright then the Performing Rights Society threaten to prosecute the municipality. This actually happened. [Time limit.]

The Minister has told us that he sees the impracticability of the suggestion of registering all these songs. That practically emasculates the Bill, for if the second half of it goes—as I take it must go—there is very little of it left. While admitting there is room for legislation, it seems to me that we shall have to draft another Bill. We see the difficulty of giving the performers notice. The Minister suggests that the difficulty might be met by putting a stamp on the music, but there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of music already in existence and we cannot jettison their unfortunate composers. I am informed that when a popular piece of music is put on the market, the performers do not buy them by the thousand, but obtain only one copy and alter it for orchestral purposes, and they also take liberties with the score. The musicians who perform the piece very rarely see the actual printed music, they playing from a written score. So the Minister’s suggestion will not meet the case. The matter should stand over, for the Bill as it stands cannot go through. Sections 150 and 160 practically contradict each other. Then Section 8 of our law definitely states that no prosecution can take place until notice has been given, so the Bill is not really necessary. The giving of seven days’ notice is impossible, and it is against the English Copyright Act, which is part of our law. We have reached this stage of possible agreement that we realize some sort of notice should be required, but to make the authors and composers register is impracticable. The registration is for the benefit of the performers. It is supposed to operate as notice to them. Is Mr. Schlesinger going to have a man at Pretoria to examine these all the time? Take ten years hence. Are you going to look through all these lists? Some form of notice is desirable, and my suggestion, I think, is the most practicable one. The Performers Rights Society is constantly circulating these things. They have their magazine, and I think the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) can take it from me there is not much danger of there being an accumulation of superannuated lists which are never looked at. To show the modus operandi here is a broadcasting programme circulated by Mr. Schlesinger, and practically every one of the songs and compositions are copyright; yet he is suggesting a law which will absolve him from payment of royalties. Why should not all these small bands and orchestras pay? If a policeman buys a novel he has to pay for it, and it is no different with regard to music. No one takes a novel into a town hall or into a bioscope and reads it to a thousand people. As I say, it is different in music. There is also a copyright in poetry. The principle is the same, but the operation is different. Take the published song: “It ain’t going to rain no more.’” How many people have seen this song with a stamp upon it? For everyone who has seen a stamp upon it thousands have never seen one. How can you put a stamp on a piece of music which is broadcasted? In the Berlin Convention the composers are entitled to performers’ rights, and here we propose saying that you shall have your performers’ rights, but we shall see that you never exercise them. Are you going to take those rights away merely because they are uitlanders? There is a moral duty on us because they rely upon our signature to the Berlin treaty. I hope the hon. member will accept my amendment. The law, as drafted, is not practicable, and he must realize that we cannot pass this law as it stands. I ask him to accept my amendment or adjourn the debate so that we can come together and draft an amendment that will meet the position.

Just before the adjournment I was pointing out the position with reference to the conclusion of contracts from £5 to £200 a year was still worse a few years ago. They only waited until something occurred which they considered a breach of the regulations and then came to the people and threatened them with litigation. That happened in my district and, therefore, municipalities there are insisting on an alteration being made. I have now seen the amendment of the Minister of Justice, and it disposes of many of my objections, but I do not yet know whether the amendment will be passed and had to raise my objections. If it is not passed, I feel that I will vote for the Bill as it stands.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), said that we must protect the people who have the performing right. We must, however, also protect the other side, and the hon. member himself feels that. This Bill practically protects both sides. It does not take away any special right that people have with their performing rights to-day, because it expressly says that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply to works that are registered. As soon as anyone has registered, he has all the rights and privileges which he has to-day without registration. I think registration in. South Africa only costs £1. If a piece of music is not worth that, it is not worth being performed anywhere. When the £1 is paid, registration takes place, and this also removes the difficulty of the seven days’ notice. The pieces that are registered are alphabetically arranged in the Registration Office, and it is easy for anyone wanting to perform it to ascertain whether it is registered or not. That solves the difficulties. I object, however, to the provision from line 19 to line 22, that the provisions shall not apply to performances of music at a place which is not a recognized place of public amusement. I think that is unnecessary, because performances in a private house are not subject to the law, or we are actually exposing the private houses as well to the same obligations as a public place, because the clause says that if a piece is performed in a public place, seven days’ notice must be given, but if it is registered, it is not necessary, and an interdict can be obtained without notice, but it excludes a private house. Private people may get into trouble, and I therefore move—

I do not think that the amendment of the Minister will meet the case that has been put forward by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), because it struck me, while the Minister was speaking, that there must be thousands of copies of musical competitions in this country that have been issued for years and years which have got no stamp of any sort upon them. Consequently, the amendment proposed by the Minister will not refer to cases of that sort. I thought the whole object was to protect the interests of small people. The majority of these composers are small people.

They have sold their rights.

A great many have not sold their rights, and, except you have some organization to look after them, it is impossible for them to maintain their rights whenever people are purloining their productions, and why the product of a man’s brain in producing music that becomes popular should not be protected as well as any other sort of property. I, for the love of me, cannot understand.

Take the talent of the performer

The artist performing is, I presume, also carrying out his professional duties, and making a living to a large extent by using the talent of the composer of the work that he is performing. My hon. friend (Mr. van Hees) seems to forget that wherever these productions are used for non-money-making purposes, there is no charge of any sort whatsoever, but why should any individual or organization use, for the sake of money-making, the production of an individual without that individual having the right to get same share of the production which his brain has evolved.

Nobody wants to do that.

My hon. friend says nobody wants to do it. His Bill says that they must give at least seven days’ notice. A clause of the Bill says that they have no redress except they give seven days’ notice. How is it possible in a country like this, with its great distances, where a performance takes place without a composer having any chance of knowing that a performance is going to take place, for the composer to be protected? How does my hon. friend reconcile the dignity of this country with the fact that we are signatories to the Berlin convention, from which, in this Bill, you desire to depart? That, I think, is a very serious thing indeed. My hon. friend knows that we are signatories to the Berlin convention, and you here, by a side issue, try to depart from the obligations that we have entered into in connection with that convention.

This is not a contravention of the Berlin convention.

If it is not a contravention of the Berlin convention, then I don’t know what is a contravention of the Berlin convention. The whole idea of that convention was to protect the music of composers. There must be hundreds and thousands of composers of music who have no opportunity, except there is an organization throughout the various countries to look after their interests, of getting any remuneration for the musical compositions which they have produced. I really do not think that the charges that are made are excessive. The people who are going to pay these charges are carrying on places in this country, either bioscopes or things of that sort, for the purpose of making money, and making money to a very considerable extent, and surely if they are assisted in making that money by the work of a composer, it is only fair and reasonable that he should receive a fair return for the product of his own brain.

It seems to me that the amendment of the Minister of Justice is identical with the intention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and the question really is then, which is the most practicable form of amendment? There are several points I would like to mention that seem to be weak points in the amendment of the Minister of Justice. The Minister speaks of certain words being printed, or practically having to be printed, on the face of a piece of music other than the usual word “copyright.” His amendment says that music shall bear on the face of it the words that the public performance is prohibited. I would ask hon. members of this House, do they think that music that is being published for the use of the world is going to have special words printed on it because, possibly, it may come into the Union of South Africa? It seems to me that you are making an impracticable demand in that respect. It seems to me that you are asking the world to say that the whole of the music that is printed is to have these words printed on it, because the Union of South Africa may possibly import some of it. That being impracticable, what would have to happen is that every piece of music imported into the country would have to be specially over-printed with these words. Even that does not cover the point, because a lady in Berlin or in Holland sends a piece of music out to South Africa to a friend of hers, and unless she takes steps to put those words on before it leaves that country, it arrives in this country without having any imprint on it at all. Therefore the suggestion of the Minister seems to be impracticable. We understand from the Minister that he does appreciate the equity of the suggestion by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and therefore, I suggest that the only way of meeting that objection equitably is to accept the amendment of the hon. member. I think that is quite evident. The hon. member for Piquetburg (Mr. de Waal), when it was pointed out that this question affects the small people, interjected that the small people have sold their rights.

The big one also. I did not say the small ones.

Well, anyway, small and big have sold their rights. Surely hon. members on the other side will appreciate that if, when the publishers have purchased this right from the small and big people, from the composers, if the whole of the profits that can be made from publishing this music are filched from them—take it for granted that similar legislation would be passed by every legislature in the world—no publisher would be able to give these people any remuneration for their work at all. There would be no future market for the production of musical works because no publisher would pay these people royalties for their work if he could not get his investment back with a profit on it. Musical talent would be absolutely valueless. It would have no market-value in the world. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Piquet-berg that it really does not matter, that the artist has sold his rights, does not bear one minute’s inspection. It is incorrect to think it would not affect the musical composer, because no publisher would publish music if he did not think he had protection under the Copyright Act. I would like to make reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). I really do not think that members on the other side will support him in his statement. His statement was more or less to the effect that this Performing Rights Society is an overseas society, so why should we worry about what we do with regard to them.

That was not my main argument.

No, but it was part of his argument. What I suggest to the hon. member is this, that if he wants to carry the thing to its right and final conclusion, if you do not want foreigner’s art or goods or anything, you need not have them, but if you want foreign art and foreign music in this country, you in all honesty have to, pay for them. That is really the position. I can understand the hon. member saying that no foreign art of any kind is allowed into this delightful country of ours, that we are self-contained, but if he agrees he wants music that comes from overseas, surely he won’t take up the position that he has a moral right to take it without paying for it. The intention of this Bill is that you shall not pay for the right of performance of a musical work. Whatever the hon. member who introduced this Rill says, if you look at Section 160 (a) and read it, it is perfectly clear to the ordinary man in the street that it is absolutely unworkable, and therefore, the ordinary man in the street will simply say that the intention of the Bill is to filch the rights of the people who have written the music, and that is what the world will say. It be said that in this country of ours, that is talking about “South Africt first” and that we do not want anything foreign in the country, that we take foreign things, we refuse to pay for them, and then we pass Acts of Parliament practically filching the brains of better people than ourselves.

I do not want my overseas argument to be misunderstood. It is not the real issue. The whole debate is going astray on the question of protecting the author or composer. This Bill is for the performing rights. It does not interfere with copyright. No author would wish to stop using his books and circulating them as much as possible or one getting on a platform and reading from them, but he does not want any printer or publisher to pirate them. The same with the composer. He is interested in publicly performing his work as frequently as possible, but this society is not. Quite the contrary, it is not concerned in that desirability at all. The composer makes his money entirely on the sale of the music, piano music, songs and so on. If the society were protecting him in that it would be right enough, but he is already protected there. The performer is doing good service in making known the songs, or the musical compositions of a particular composer, and the composer would, naturally, encourage it. That is exactly where the argument is going wrong. The hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) and other hon. members are trying to get tribute on the performing right, but this Performing Rights Society, believe me, does not come in to protect composers in regard to pirating. They care very little about that, but if they can, they get hold of any composer just to add to their list, and then say: “We will sell you the whole of their rights; in other words, we will blackmail you if you don’t pay the company so much a year. We will go for you at the first chance, but we will sell the guarantee not to jump on you.” If that is not blackmailing I do not know what it is. The company does not circulate a balance sheet showing exactly where the profits go. They pocket the profits for shareholders, as far as I can see. I hope this committee will not be misled, and that it will see that there should be no attempt to interfere with performances, or only if they give necessary and sufficient notice. If the society is out to protect composers, and did their business in the right way they would have a number of clerks and travelling representatives, but they do not have any considerable staff. A single representative sits like a spider in the middle of a web, and watches for some unfortunate performer to touch the trap set, and so ensure a catch.

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken does not seem to understand the position. There is a fundamental difference between a publisher and a composer. What is the good of an advertisement to a composer?

He gets a royalty.

He docs not under this law He could not live if he had to get the royalty on the actual broad sheet. A book is different; no one stands up and reads a book to a thousand people. What is the good of an advertisement to a composer? It is a barren honour. A composition comes from England and is copied on little pieces of cardboard for instrumental music The performer rarely plays from the actual broad-sheet coming from England. The hon. member does not understand the inner workings and procedure. This society is a co-operative society in which the profits are evenly distributed amongst the members. There is a pro rata distribution to every member—of that I can give the hon. member my assurance.

How would you divide up £50, or what is paid by a particular hall?

There is a system of points multiplied by the general popularity of a piece. It is not a precise mathematical proposition, but works very well. Last year at Rome an international conference of composers met and protested against this Bill. It was not a “spider sitting in a web” and a “blackmailing association,” such as the hon. member spoke of, but an honest body of men trying to get their due. The hon. member discussed Mr. Schlesinger. Assuming that he or some other trust or combine got hold of the thing, they could simply form a monopoly of music and freeze out music at a café. We would be in a worse position than we are in now. The hon. member read a letter showing there is another association. The author can sell all his rights.

The society can.

I do feel we would not be doing a fair thing to the people who relied on our signature to a treaty. I admit we have the right to alter it; but we should not do so without adequate notice, and not in this sort of way. This Bill will not get at the trouble the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) is trying to get at. This Bill is simply going to say to the composer: “We have given you a legal right, and we shall see you shall not enforce your rights.” I will not say that this Bill has as its intention to rob them of their rights, but in effect it is robbing the widow and the orphans. The Minister has admitted that this Bill, as it stands, cannot go through. The Minister has practically emasculated the Bill, and can we pass it in that lop-sided condition? I do not deny that there is room for legislation—I think there is but this Bill does not meet the difficulty the hon. member for Delarey is trying to get at. Surely the commonsense thing for us to do it to get together or for the Government to assume responsibility for this. This Bill will cause injustice and bring us into disrepute. Let us withdraw this Bill, which is the really sound thing to do, and take counsel how to re shape another Bill.

I would urge the committee to take the view suggested by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) particularly for the reason that the Minister of Justice practically supports him. He practically says that the Bill is not satisfactory, and is likely to lead to a certain amount of injustice. It would be very much better for us to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

That will mean next year, some time.

That would give the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) an opportunity of discussing the matter with other persons interested, and try to arrive at some fair arrangement, so that no injustice is done, and at the same time prevent the Performing Rights Society exercising unfair pressure with regard to the performance of its members’ music in public. I move—

I hope the hon. member will withdraw that. The Bill has been before us for two years, and members have had ample time to make it a better measure. I cannot accept the motion to report progress.

I did hope that the hon. member would accept the motion, for we cannot pass the Bill as it stands. In the interests of the case the hon. member has put up it is desirable to re-cast the whole of the law. We have no desire to be unreasonable.

You could have given notice of amendments.

As we discuss private Bills in committee we exchange ideas, and realize the good and bad points of the Bill.

I will accept the Minister’s amendment.

The Minister’s amendment cuts out existing compositions, and that will be a greater injustice to composers throughout the world than even the Bill as it stands. I believe the Minister realizes that his suggestion is impracticable. Don’t let us be obstinate about this. We are all desirous of helping.

What are we discussing?

I am appealing to the hon. member to accept a motion for the adjournment, for the Bill needs revision.

You have said that over and over again.

There is a rule which says that such reiteration is not permissible.

I did not know that. I thought it was possible to emphasize what is a perfectly sound argument.

I join my voice with those who are proposing that we should report progress and ask leave to sit again. The speech of the Minister of Justice has thrown a new light on the matter. Some hon. members do not realize what the position is, and even today they are a little bit foggy about the matter. The protection of bioscope operators and restaurant keepers is desirable, but this is not the way to do it.

I also would appeal to the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) to agree to the motion for the adjournment, for there is no doubt the Minister of Justice is very uneasy about the Bill as it stands. The rights of a very large number of people are at stake. I was very sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) when he referred, in a contemptuous manner, to the Performing Rights Society.

The question is to report progress.

That is what I am aiming at. An entire change has taken place in the situation this afternoon. If the Bill is passed in its present form a great injustice will be done to a number of people.

I appreciate the request of hon. members that I should accept this motion, but it simply means this Bill goes back to the committee and it will be killed. If hon. members really mean what they say, then when the report stage is reached there will be time to accept any amendment, and have it adopted. Then the Bill must go through the Senate. The opportunity will be given there to make it a better Bill. To throw it back now will be a waste of time of the last two years.

I am sorry the hon. member will not accept the adjournment of the debate, and I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here. I realize that the Minister of Justice considered there were dangers in the Bill drafted by the hon. member, and, as we pointed out, some of the amendments of the Minister of Justice would not meet the objections to the Bill. If my hon. friend is anxious to get the Bill through, is it not better to report progress and ask leave to sit again with a view to seeing if an arrangement can be arrived at which can be satisfactory to all parties, and which would not do a grave injustice to a large number of small people who have a right to look to this committee to protect their rights. He will facilitate the probability of a compromise by doing this, certainly more so than by refusing to accept the motion for the adjournment of the debate now. The hon. member must have realized the Minister of Justice is anxious to meet him, but the amendment is not going to meet the objections raised, and, under these circumstances, I think the hon. member would be well advised to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Will the hon. member ask the Minister of Justice to come into the House? It is germane to the issue whether we report progress to hear whether the Minister of Justice adheres to his amendment. I understand he now realizes the defects of his own amendment, and we ought to know what he thinks on this matter, because his opinion is important. It is a pity to vote for the adjournment or to carry on without knowing where we stand. This Bill ought to have been introduced by the Minister of Justice.

It ought to have been a Government measure.

That being the case, I am sure the Minister of Justice has not intentionally left us. He did not realize the drift of this discussion. The hon. member might do us the courtesy of sending for the Minister of Justice, and of asking him how he would sum up the position now. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) admits that new light has broken on his mind on this subject, and I think it is necessary; in fact, we are entitled to a further expression from the Minister of Justice, and if he knew we were desirous of such an expression of opinion, he would come into the House. I ask the hon. member for Delarey to ask the Minister to come into the House.

The hon. member has said that three or four times already.

A thing cannot be said too often.

The thing can be put right at the report stage. There is no need to report progress and ask leave to sit again. I have seen trouble caused by the same sort of thing. I recollect a case where it was intended to amend it at the report stage, and trouble was caused in the country, and we were accused of unworthy motives. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) realizes this is an imperfect Bill, and I think, after all, he will be well advised to accept the motion to report progress.

I wish to support the motion now before us.

I move—

declined to accept the motion.

I think the hon. member for Delarey goes too far. I have an amendment that might be acceptable to many members on this side of the House, which would not take away the composer’s rights. What is the actual cause of trouble in this matter is that the Performing Rights Society, in the form of an ultimatum to various proprietors of halls, cafés and municipalities, informs them that unless they are prepared to take out its licence, they will run the risk of paying the heavy costs of an interdict.

The hon. member must adhere to the motion.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Delarey why he should support this motion.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) thinks that we are going, if I may use a slang term, to lick this Bill into shape at the report stage.

The Bill is in committee now.

This is the place where we ought to do it, and not at the report stage. I moved an amendment which the Minister himself approved of. This Bill does not require only amendment; it requires a new Bill in effect. We cannot do that at the report stage. I think it is obvious to all that we require a new Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) raised a point which he was kind enough to submit to me just now, and which I see the potency of. There are points of legal procedure which will have to be considered before this Bill can be made a true Bill. It seems to me that we cannot go on like this. I ask the hon. member to agree to adjourn. Assuming that he refuses to adjourn, will the hon. member tell me whether he is serious when he tells us that he won’t adjourn, and that he is going on with the Bill, as it stands. Is he really serious, after what the Minister has told us, and after he has been able to sense the feeling of the House? Surely he is not serious in telling us that he is going on with this Bill as it stands, and that the glaring defects of this Bill can be remedied.

I do not admit the “glaring defects.”

If the hon. member does not admit that these are very serious blemishes, he stands alone in that respect. He said himself that he realized the strength of the arguments that have been brought forward, and that fresh aspects had come to him during this afternoon, and I think that to all of us fresh light has been thrown upon this Bill this afternoon, such fresh light that I really do not see how this House can be asked to go on with the Bill as it stands. Once more I appeal to the hon. member to let us adjourn. We are not hostile to the hon. member’s real intention, but we do say that as the Bill stands it does not achieve the object he has in view. Once more I wish to express my regret that the Minister of Justice cannot be brought here, because there is another aspect that I wish to put before the House as to why we should adjourn. As the Bill stands at present, it is really a private fight between private interests, and I hold that this House should not be made the cockpit of private interests and private fights. We are being used here to enter into a private fight with which we as a House have no concern. I repeat that this is not an arena for private fights. The public aspects of the Copyright Act and of composers’ rights and performers’ rights are of sufficient interest to justify the Government in intervening with some other Bill. This Bill will never do, and for these reasons I trust that the debate will be adjourned.

I move—

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—44.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—34.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; van Zyl, G. B.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again put and the committee divided:

Ayes—36.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Marwick, J. S.; Roux, J. W. J. W.

Noes—42.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P J.

To Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

Surely the Chairman is not going to accept that motion. There is no sense of right in that at all. It is a monstrous shame to put it forward.

It is grossly unfair.

The hon. member says it is grossly unfair.

Not on the part of the Chair, but on the part of the hon. member who suggested it.

I am accepting the motion.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) intimated some time ago that he had an amendment. Surely there must be a mistake somewhere.

The committee will understand I am not going to allow very much time for this. Although in my opinion the matter has been sufficiently discussed, I will give an opportunity to the hon. member for Gardens to move his amendment.

Will we have an opportunity of discussing this amendment?

The hon. member will have an opportunity. The clause has already been sufficiently discussed, but I will give a reasonable time for the discussion of the amendment, before accepting a closure motion.

I am not moving this amendment with any idea of obstructing the Bill. It is a constructive amendment which I think will be acceptable to the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). I supported the hon. member for Delarey on the second reading, but I think he has gone a little too far and I ask him to accept this amendment which will meet the complaints against this society. The question of the innocent infringer is dealt with in Section 8 of the British Copyright Act. Perhaps hon. members would like me to read the section [section read]. The point of the hon. member is met entirely by Section 8, except insofar as it refers to injunction. This society is a genuine society. It is a company which secures under one control the performing rights of composers of musical works. It is their methods to which objection is taken. The society has come to South Africa where, without registering the copyright of their constituent members, it threatens an interdict if any of these works are performed without a licence from it. The first demand was made on the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs at a time when he contracted broadcasting. He acquiesced with the demand for a licence. Then they followed that up by going to one of the largest municipalities in this country and adopting the same procedure, and then the procedure is extended to the smaller man, who may not be able to afford to pay this licence fee of £25, £30 or £40 a year, or whatever it may be. Some of the persons concerned have taken up the attitude that they do not want to infringe any person’s copyright, that they are quite prepared to pay a fee for performance of particular music, but object to be called upon to pay a round sum annually, forming a considerable burden perhaps in some cases upon the operations of their business, and not knowing at any time whether the music they were performing was actually copyright. The procedure of this society is this: It sends out an inspector who calls upon the proprietor of such an establishment to take out an annual licence. If he, on his part, inquires whether or not they possess the copyright in any particular works which he may desire to perform, their reply is this: “We refuse to tell you. We are not prepared to supply you with a list of our copyright works. You perform at your risk, and if you choose to perform in that way and you happen to perform a musical work in respect of which we hold the copyright, we will take you to court and you will be mulcted in the costs of an interdict.” Consequently, this proprietor, when faced with the risk of having to pay the costs of such an interdict, prefers to take out the licence, but he does so under protest and this Bill, I take it, is a reflection of those protests which come from various parts of the country; The case of the innocent infringer is clearly provided for in the British Copyright Act, but it does not go far enough. As a matter of fact, as against an innocent infringer, no summons can be issued. Section 8 deals with the position of the innocent infringer (quoted). The whole position is amply met by giving the defendant the same right in respect of the costs of the interdict, as he possesses where a summons is issued. The plaintiff can get his interdict, but you can take away from him the weapon which compels the persons concerned to-day to make this contribution if he cannot secure the costs of that interdict. The effect then, will be this, that these composers, or the Society on their behalf, will have by proper advertisement and other means to make it clear to the public what are the works in respect of which they have copyright. May I now move, formally, this amendment? [Amendment read.] I move that as a substitution for the first paragraph of Clause 1.

I was rather sorry to see the attitude adopted by some hon. members across the way, and I stated I did not think they were very fair. No more I do. We have been admitting, all along, that some legislation should be devised to meet the point raised in this amendment, that some sort of adequate protection should be provided, that there should be some measure taken to prevent the Performing Rights Society going too far. To my mind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), to a large extent meets that. We have had the most cogent reasons for altering this Bill very fundamentally, and yet the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) has not suggested any amendment. They just sit there. We cannot legislate like that. It is reducing the thing to a farce. All along I have frankly admitted that the performers are entitled to some sort of notice and to protection. Not only the composers are entitled to protection, but the performers also. The amendment I moved, as well as that now moved, are both designed to protect not the composers, but the performers. The way to protect the performer is by an amendment that will really protect him without at the same time, robbing the composers of their just rights. The hon. member for Delarey has told us he does not want to rob the composers of their rights, and yet this Bill does that very thing Then why not accept this amendment? I would point to the absence of the Minister of Justice, who actually has an amendment on the paper, and who has disappeared in the last two hours, although this is a Bill of considerable public importance. Are we in a tired House, going to pass a Bill like this, which is going to create an injustice? There is no questions about it. If we pass this Bill we will be doing a rank injustice to large numbers of people. Is this the atmosphere in which to pass legislation of this sort, depriving of their rights people not here to defend themselves, and infringing upon an international treaty? I do hope the House will accept that amendment. Coming back to my own amendment, I prefer mine to that of the hon. member for Gardens, although both aim at achieving the same result, that of protecting the performer without depriving the composer of his just dues and rights, and yet it seems to me the attitude of members on the opposite side has become one of mere obstinacy. That is not the way to legislate in this country. If we sat till to-morrow morning it would become a contest of endurance and obstinacy. We have not, on this side, been trying to make it a contest of endurance, but have been putting one argument after another which are valid. Do not let us legislate in the style of petulant schoolboys, in which neither side wants to give way. One hon. member on the other side said, “We will show you, and we will keep you here.” No doubt the hon. member who made that remark, and has just come in, can keep us here all night, but it will not be fair legislation.

The time has arrived to come to a decision on this question, and I now move—

May I ask the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) for his views?

I am sorry, I cannot do that, and wait until someone has spoken. I will accept the motion.

Motion put and a division called.

On a point of order, I do not think there was a quorum when the division was called. Is that valid?

My attention was not drawn to it.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—30.

Basson, P. N.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rood, W. H.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—19.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Moffat, L.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tellers: Coulter, C. W. A.; Snow, W. J.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Col. D. Reitz put and the committee divided:

Ayes—20.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Moffat, L.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Tellers: Blackwell L.; Giovanetti, C. W.

Noes—30.

Basson, P. N.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Hees, A S.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Swart, C. R.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

May I ask the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) whether he is accepting the Ministers amendment?

I cannot allow it to be discussed now.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice and the Rev. Mr. Hattingh put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 1.

Before you put Clause 2, I wish to move a new clause to follow Clause 1. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) has assured us that this Bill, in the form in which he introduced it, and in the form in which the first clause has now been adopted by the committee, will not infringe any convention binding on the Union and relating to copyright. He has told us, if I remember correctly, that he has taken opinion on that point, and he is satisfied, I presume on the advice of the law advisers of the Crown, that there would be no infringement of any international convention to which the Union is a party. We must take it, particularly as the Minister of Justice has moved an amendment to Clause 1, that the Government is satisfied that there will be no infringement of any such convention, but rather than to have that view of this clause as it has now been passed in any uncertainty, I think we should make it clear that this Bill should be construed so as to make sure that it does not infringe any such convention. Consequently I move that the following be a new clause to follow Clause 1—

I am prepared to accept that.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 16th March.