Copyrighters Make Big Demands In The Field Of Wireless.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17881, 24 June 1926, Page 10

Copyrighters Make Big Demands In The Field Of Wireless.

Broadcasting in New Zealand has a difficulty to face because of the demands that are being made by the holders of the copyright of musical items, and the position has become so acute that a decision of the Supreme Court must be necessary. Wireless enthusiasts look forward to the receipt of popular airs each night, but there is the possibility that these may not be broadcast.

The powder is laid, the fuse set, and everything is in train for the ether to be shattered; not in the ordinary sense as recognised by listeners-in, but in the sense of-litigation. It is a certainty, apparently, that wireless will come into courts of New Zealand, for the lack of legislation has caused to arise a problem which can be solved only by a decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court. The company which is concerned With the broadcasting of programmes is faced by two difficult matters which have the tendency to restrict its operations, and unless relief is found—and that can be only through a favourable judgment of the Court—broadcasting in the Dominion will be hampered to such an extent that it will be worth iittle to those who have laid the foundation of the new science and who have invested so much money in it. Dealing with the question of copyright. '‘Radio” (Sydney) and " New Zealand Wireless” (Wellington) of the latest dates have much to say which deeply concerns the thousands who have taken up the hobby of wireless, and who find pleasure nightly in listening to musical items from many parts of the world. “ New Zealand Wireless ” states: “So far the wireless community has not troubled itself about a question w’hich sooner or later—and soon rather than late —is likely to become a very big one; that is, the relationship between the broadcasting organisation and the holders of copyright in the matter performed in the transmitting studios. Copyright is, in the realm of literature and art, the equivalent of patent rights, and enables its holder to obtain a royalty on public performances or productions of the copyrighted matter. . The development of broadcasting has introduced a complication into the copyright situation. . . The subject seems never to have been ventilated in New Zealand, but it is a cause of some anxiety in Australia. On the same subject “ Radio" says; ** One of the greatest and most serious obstacles in the way of successful broadcasting to-day is the demand made by the copyright owners upon the broadcasting companies. In the case of one station operating in New South Wales, actually 20 per cent of the revenue being received is paid out in this way—one-fifth of the money paid by the listening-in public goes into the pockets of an organisation which has not shown the slightest desire to co-operate in broadcasting other than lifting a big proportion of the spoils. Legislation with regard to copyright was obviously intended as a means of protection, but the attitude of the owners of copyright has automatically transformed it into an aggressive weapon; a striking illustration is afforded by the fact that, according to the broadcasting station re ferred to above, the copyright owners in one letter withdrew permission to broadcast ' no fewer than forty-six musical comedies, which means,- of course, that the public were at orte stroke autocratically denied the privilege of listening to those items by radio. “ Under the ban of the copyright owners, acting in conjunction with the executors of the late Sir Arthur Sullivan. also come the whole of the Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas, and it recalls Sbylock’s demand for the pound of flesh when it is considered that a demand for a list of items and payment of royalties was made in respect to items re-broadcast from America by Australian stations after transmission from America. Virtually speaking, copyright rests in the hands of a monopoly which exercises its powers to the fullest extent. “ The public pays for broadcasting, but the copyright owners, who contribute nothing towards the support of boardcasting. greedily absorb a considerable amount of this revenue as welt as control, to a very large extent, the kind of musical items broadcast. The broadcasters could, of course, confine themselves to non-copyright items, but how long the public would tolerate continuous doses of out-of-date matter it would not be difficult to imagine. The position is that in order to cope with the public demand, the broadcasters are forced to use modern material—or. in other words, items for | which the copyrighters demand exorbitant royalties. Even then the onus is left upon the broadcasters to deter- ; mine what is or what is not copyright, and the copyrighters reserve the right to refuse permission to broadcast any particular item, or to withdraw permission previously granted. A more invidious position it would be difficult to imagine. Surely legislation was never intended to place such arbitrary and extensive powers in the bands of individuals who control something which was unheard of when the legislation was enacted? The position actually is that the copyright owners have strained the law to bursting point in their own interests by an interpretation which is unconsciously harsh. If only they can be persuaded

to adopt an attitude of sweet, reasonableness. the situation could be remedied; as, however, this seems as far away from their minds as the North Pole is from the South, there seems to be only one thing left to do—to demand from the legislature an early revision of the existing law, so that even justice may be done to both parties.” The position is just as acute in N.Z. and there is such A glorious uncertainty that those directly concerned do not know, for the time being, at any rate, where they stand. The whole matter has for some time been the subject of correspondence between the Radio Broadcasting Co- of N.Z. Ltd. and the , representatives of the copyright owners. The negotiations have resulted in a deadlock. A minimum charge amounting to ten per cent of the Broadcasting Company's gross revenue is demanded by the copyright interests. In fairness to the listeners-in the Broadcasting Company has refused to accede to this demand. The representatives of the copyright interests reply to this refusal with a threat to commence proceedings for an injunction restraining the Broadcasting Company from putting on the air copyright matter. When the issue does come up for decision it will be closely followed, not only by people from the North Cape to the Bluff, but by wireless enthusiasts in other parts of the world. The Radio Broadcasting Company of New Zealand, Ltd., is licensed by the Government. Bv its agreement with the Government, the company is bound (inter alia) to broadcast concert programmes, including items of a musical character. The question of copyright in such musical works as the company may itself broadcast or procure or permit other persons to broadcast has been raised by the Australian Performing Right Association Ltd. of Sydney-. This firm, which apparently controls the copyright in a large number of musical works, (estimated at 98 per cent of the musical field) likely to be broadcasted by the company, has requested that the company should either enter into an arrangement with it for permission to broadcast such works as it controls, or refrain from broadcasting them. The law relating to copyright in New Zealand is contained in the Copyright Act of 1913, which, in effect, gives to the author of any original work the right of copyright therein. It would lx? safe to assume that substantially the whole of the modem musical works brought into New Zealand would be governed by the Act. The Act provides generally that copyright shall remain in existence during the lifetime of the author and fifty years after his death, which makes it difficult to decide what works are copyright. It would seem that the Broadcasting Company must inevitably send out into the ether compositions subject to the Act. In the Act itself the word copyright is defined as “ the sole right to perform the work or any substantial Part thereof in public,” and, performance is defined as meaning “ any acoustic representation of a work . . . including such a representation made by means of any mechanical instrument.” It can thus be seen that the problems which will have to be decided by the Court are complicated indeed, as so much will depend on the interpretations of words and phrases. “In the case of one station,” says “ New Zealand Wireless,” “ the forced acceptance of an agreement strictly limits the number of .copyright items that may be given in return for the pavment of a considerable portion of the station s revenue. In return for the receipt of 10 per cent of the revenue received copyright items to the number of S4OO may be presented to the public in one year. This, when divided bv the days of the year, allows a fraction over twenty-three items a (lav. As an average item lasts four minutes the day's allowance is exhausted in a fraction over an hour and a half. As most stations broadcast anything from six to eight hours a day upwards, there remains at the lowest estimate four and a half to six and a half hours to be filled in with old masters and non-copyright matter and music that was popular about the middle of last century. ... It is true that the copvrighters made a further allowance which operates with even greater harshness. They will permit the broadcasting of a further 840 items, provided the Broadcasting Company is '- , red to hand over a further 1 per cent of its revenue—thus for two further items an additional 1 per cent is | demanded, without any limit to the amount involved. Assuming that the revenue of the station was £IOO a dav (£36,500 per annum! the royalties oil these two extra numbers would be 10s each, and so on for each additional item throughout the programme. Assuming also that the revenue of the station increased the actual proportion remains unaltered, while the sheer gain to the copyright holders is increased to possibly outrageous figures.” The journal from which the quotation above is taken urges the passing of legislation to provide a fair and equitable statement of what shall be paid and suggests 6d a song or other item of approximately the same length. It considers that, that would bring in a rich harvest for the copyright and at the same time allow of access on 1 the part of the public.