Legislation
| Published date | 01 March 1956 |
| Date | 01 March 1956 |
| Author | A. Goodman |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1956.tb00354.x |
J
,EGISLATION
THE
COPYRIGHT
BILL
THE
Copyright Bill has passed through its various stages in the
House of Lords, but this note cannot be anything more than
tentative observations about a measure which beyond doubt will
undergo material alteration
on
matters of cardinal importance in
its remaining stages in the Lords and in its passage through the
Commons. Much of what is mentioned here may, even before its
publication, be of purely archaelogical interest, but there are
circumstances relating to the introduction of the Bill and its present
features which justify comment at this genitive stage, since there
is much hard work which needs to be done
if
the Bill
is
even
remotely to justify the high aspirations of its sponsors.
The Bill had its second reading in the Lords
on
November
15,
1955,
and was introduced by the Lord Chancellor
in
a relatively
brief speech which of necessity omitted reference to a great number
of the novelties introduced by the Bill and a few of its revolutionary
features. In his concluding peroration, however, Lord
Kilmuir,
normally an impassive and unemotional man, rose to unwonted
eloquence when he said of the Bill-
“It
is important to authors and composers of music, and
to innumerable other people to whom we owe immense pleasure
in
our lives.
It
is also important that a world which con-
centrates of necessity
so
greatly
on
the destructive aspects of
modern thought and invention should turn occasionally to the
side of intellectual achievement and the requirement to help
those who contribute to the advance of the spiritual side of
man.”
These observations could
f
airly be calculated to raise high hopes
in the breasts of authors and other creative workers. From
Grub-
street to the Athenaeum, there should have been a rubbing of
hands in high glee-plainly there were
good
things to come. Alas,
when the details of the Bill were unveiled, the terms in which
it
had been introduced by the Lord Chancellor looked very odd.
I
have read the
Bill
with care and
it
is not
I
think an exaggeration
to say that
on
every single topic of consequence where the Bill
introduces change in the existing law,
it
is
a
change adverse to
the interests
of
the author, artist
or
the composer. This is
not
to say that some of the changes may not be desirable and expedient
from a broader aspect than a sectional concern, but
it
is humbug
to assert that the measure is in any sense a charter for the creative
artist
or
was brought into existence from any wish to serve those
interests.
186
To continue reading
Request your trial