RADIO MUSIC IN PUBLIC

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21952, 13 May 1933, Page 19

RADIO MUSIC IN PUBLIC

LOUD-SPEAKER “ PERFORMANCES” IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, April 9. A ruling against loud-speaker reproductions of 8.8. C. broadcasts to guests in. hotels and public houses was given by Mr Justice Maugham in a test qase in tne Chancery Division yesterday. It was intimated that the case would probably be taken to the Court of Ap- ** The action was brought by the Performing Right Society, Ltd., of George street, Hanover square, for an injunction restraining Hammond’s Bradford Brewery Company, Ltd., of Bradford, from permitting the George Hotel, Bnghouse, to be used for the public performance ot any musical work of winch the society held the rights of performance. Mr Justice Maugham ruled that tne reproduction was a performance, and that the use of the tuning-in apparatus and the loud-speaker for the benefit of the guests at the hotel w r as an act not justified or authorised by the license given to the corporation. Accordingly the performance was an infringement of_ the copyright, and he granted a declaration to that effect, with costs. . In delivering judgment, Mr Justice Maugham said that the reproduction, in his opinion, was as much a performance as the reproduction of a musical piece by a gramophone apparatus. If, as had to be admitted, that was a performance within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1911, he could see no reason why the broadcasting apparatus was not giving forth a musical piece just as much as if a gramophone was employed to do it—and with the same result, from the point of view of the original author, THE VITAL ISSUE. He pointed out that a performance was not an infringement of copyright in itself. To be an infringement it had fo be in public, and he held that the use of loud speakers for the benefit of public gatherings was an infringement. “In my opinion,” said the judge, the use of the tuning apparatus and the loudspeaker for the purpose of reproducing musical works for the benefit of hotel guests is an act which was not justified or authorised by the license given (by the copyright owners) to the 8.8. C. He would make a declaration to that effect, and entered judgment for the Performing Right Society, Ltd., with costs. FRIENDLY TEST ACTION. Mr G. H. Hatchman, secretary of the Performing Right Society, Ltd., said to a Daily Mail representative: “ This. has been a friendly test action to decide a very important principle. The greater proportion of composers in this country are members of our organisation, and, by agreement with similar organisations in other countries, we are empowered to issue licenses for the performance of most of the music published the world over. , “Hitherto, a good proportion of the hotel, restaurant, and public house owners —the larger ones, at any rate—who use wireless sets to entertain their patrons have applied to ns and have been granted licenses, the payment for which covers them in respect of copyright music. “The charge for these licenses varies according to the size of the place in which the wireless is being used j for example, the annual fee for a small public house would, be'about f 3 3s. “We are not contemplating any further action at the moment, but we have established the principle that we are empowered to insist on payment for licenses in every case brought to our notice.” Another organisation which is interested in the decision is the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights, and Composers. The secretary, Mr Kilham Roberts, said: _ “ In the case of dramatic works which are broadcast, as well as music and other forms of entertainment covered by copyright,. we are now, as I understand it. empowered to insist on royalty payments for the authors wherever we hear of a case of these broadcasts being reproduced in public.”