ページの画像
PDF
ePub

was

be a

was

remedy, but imprisonment would be that respect which people ought to feel useless unless there was public sym for the law and public morality generally. pathy behind it. As long as there Parliament had granted absolute privi

a public grievance owing to the leges to the musical profession in the excessive price charged for the music, no Copyright Act, and he thought that the matter what legislation was passed it hon. Member for Mid. Lanark was quite would

failure. The solution wide of the mark when he said that those the 6d. edition, which would privileges were granted solely in the enable hawkers and others to sell interests of the public. They were granted to their customers at a profit, and only to protect the brain-property of British legitimate music would then be sold. citizens, who had as much right to that As regarded imprisonment, it was com- property as people had to material plained last year that prison accommo- property. It was a humiliating position dation was becoming insufficient. Im- for Parliament to find that the Act prisonment was now being passed for the which was passed in 1842, and which smallest thing—almost for blowing one's it was thought granted privileges to the nose--and the result was that the prisons musical community, was nothing but an were becoming overcrowded, numbers empty form which was defied by the going to prison rather than pay the fines. enemies of musical copyright. Was it any How many men were there in the market wonder,when a procession of four-in-hands places of London who would run the risk was driven through an Act of Parliament of being sent to prison, where they would over the defenceless bodies of music be better fed and better housed, for what publishers and composers, that they would not be considered a dishonourable should come to Parliament and ask offence ? For himself he would not object Parliament to make good its word and to the Second Reading of the Bill. The intention as expressed in the Act of question was not the rejection of the Bill 1842 ? The evidence before the Combut the protection of the public, and be mittee showed falling receipts on the hoped the House would remember when part of music publishers and dininishthe Bill came back in the Report stage to ing royalties on the part of musical take their time at any rate in discussing composers and singers, as a result the details.

of what he might call the State-aided

invasion of the pirates, most of whom *MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)

were foreigners. After an intimate said he ventured to intervene in the acquaintance of fifteen years with music debate because he had been for a very publishers and composers he knew that not long time interested in the subject before only the publishers who had given evidence

suffered but that the small men suffered the House. Hon. Members who had been any considerable time in the House too. Were they not to be allowed to had seen the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark stand up for the small men ? The hon. play many parts, and he hoped the hon: Member for Mid. Lanark ought to have Member would forgive him for a good justified his self-confident assertion that humoured analogy when he said that the the music publishers were making large hon. Member surprised the House by profits. As a matter of fact they did sailing in in the character of Captain not. If on a fine song they made a profit, Kidd, under the Jolly Roger, to look after the interests of the pirates.

on other songs. The remedy provided There doubt

in the Bill was swift, sure, and cheap, and

that those who were interested in the Bill were at

he hoped the Government would help to present suffering from certain quite pass the measure into law. admitted evils. The operations of the pirates struck not only at the roots of the was being preached by the hon. Member for

He objected to the new morality which prosperity of the musical community and Mid. Lanark. The hon. Member said, in the rights of property, which some effect, that what the public wanted it was people did not appear to regard very to have at its own price and honestly, ii much, but he was not putting it too high it could get it, otherwise dishonestly; when he said that they struck also at legally if it could get it, otherwise

Mr. Caldwell.

was

no

No one

or

illegally. To satisfy this alleged craving of musical composers who were giving on the part of the public they were asked their best work for the benefit of the to continue to allow & coach-and-four country. The hon. Member would also to be driven through an Act of Parliament. be doing much to show the impotence It was said that the pirate helped of Parliament to enforce its own laws musical education and that it would be of copyright, by methods which were retarded if this Bill were passed; but he well known and very effective in foreign thought it very questionable whether the countries. songs which

were pirated had any educational value at all. admired more than he did songs from

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OFSTATE “The Geisha” or or “The Country Girl,'

TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE, but he doubted if they had any educa- Ayrshire, N.) said he desired to briefly tional value, and he was quite certain express his views on the Bill which that their composers did not learn their

was introduced in such an eloquent art from either musical comedies

and able

speech by the hon.

Member sentimental songs. As for the pirates he

for the Newbury Division. thought that the last thing that entered He would not attempt to emulate the their dishonest brain was that they were

eloquence of the hon. Member for Mid. giving the people music of educational Lanark, but would put a simple statement value. But although the works pirated Mid. Lanark

complained of the nature of

before the House. The hon. Member for might have no educational value, they the speech of his hon. friend the Member were the property of the man who pro for South-West Manchester, but the hon. duced them, and he ought to be protected Member himself in explaining last session from the man who waited for the moment his attitude in blocking the Bill, said that when, after expensive advertisement, they had become popular, and then stepped in that it ought not to be passed without

it was of such a contentious character to deprive him of his profits. This man waited till he heard the hon. Member for

full discussion, which it could not receive Mid. Lanark whistling the song on the top did not think that his hon. friend did

at the then period of the session. He of a bus, then bought a copy, photographed it, sold it at a ridiculously low more than his duty in bringing before price, and earned a dishonest income out of the House all the arguments. He wished it. The hon. Member advised music pub- to associate himself with all that had been lishers to take a leaf out of the book of said in praise of the manner in which the the pirate and sell music at 6d. instead Departmental Committee had carried of 1s. 4d Mr. Day himself admitted that out the task entrusted to it by the Home his firm did not aim at publishing high

Office. Mr. Fenwick was one of the class music, but even the music-hall songs

most experienced of men, and he published by Mr. Day's firm were pirated thought that for the pains which were and there would be no chance for his taken by it, the Committee deserved the

The firm in the long run. He regretted that thanks of the House of Commons. the genius and geniality of the hon. two hon. Members who had addressed Member for Mid. Lanark should have the House showed how thorough the inbeen wasted in opposition to the Bill. vestigations had been, and he thought He had once looked on the hon. Member

their painstaking labour ought to be as the model of all the Conservative appreciated. The conclusion at which virtues; then he became the apostle of the Committee arrived was that a wideadvanced Radical views, and now he was spread system of piracy had grown up the arch-priest of the old-time calling of and was doing serious injury to the propiracy and of unearned increment. perty of composers and publishers of The hon. Member would take a great music; that this piracy owed its origin to responsibility on himself if this Bill the inadequacy of the remedies provided by was rejected. He would be doing a

Parliament to protect that property against great deal to ruin a trade which had persons, of no means and no settled abode, branches not only throughout this country who deliberately conspired to break thelaw. but also in the Colonies, and he would be The Acts which had been found by the doing a great deal to diminish the incomes Committee to be inadequate were the

mean

Acts of 1842, 1869, and 1902. As re- proceedings under that Act. The Act of garded the Act of 1842, which the hon. 1902 was deficient because it gave ao Member for Mid. Lanark said was passed power to enter premises by force to search to encourage music and not to protect for pirated copies. The case had been property, the preamble said

mentioned of a seller of pirated copies “ Whereas

expedient to amend the law whose open shop was in the basement relating to copyright and to afford greater and whose stock of pirated music was in encouragement to the production of literary a locked-up shop upstairs which could not works of lasting benefit to the world.”

be entered by the police. In another then “copyright” was construed to case the door was barred and pirated

music sold through a wicket.

It was “ The sole and exclusive liberty of printing known that there was any number of or otherwise multiplying copies of any subject pirated copies of music in the house, to which the said word is herein applied.”

but the police were in the circumThe remedy against piracy in that Act stance unable to make an entry and was that the pirate should be liable to a seize them. The police did eventually civil action on the suit of the proprietor get in when the people inside got thirsty of such copyright to be brought in any and sent out for beer, and several thouCourt of Record in that part of the sands of pirated copies were seized. British dominions in which the offence That showed that the law required was committed. Then a further section strengthening. Again, copies when seized said that pirated copies should be deemed remained at the police offices for a long to be the property of the proprietor of period. The whole stock was not accessuch copyright. The hon. Member for si ble when seizures were affected, and, Mid. Lanark seemed to deny that copy- before what was seized could be deright was in any sense personal property. stroyed, the proprietor had to be sumHe said that copyright was not property moned to appear; but it was impossible as was a watch. That was perfectly true; to discover the owner, so that the police but was not copyright like the lease the were rapidly accumulating enormous hon. Member probably had of his own masses of these productions, which they house. If the hon. Member disputed had no legal power to destroy. He that he would refer him to Copinger, thought that that required the remedy a well known authority on copyright who provided by the Bill. asked what property could be more a man's own than his literary works. There Let the House glance at the extent of was clearly property in copyright, not the evil which they had to face. Its perhaps the as with the hon. magnitude had only become apparent Member's watch, but as was possessed by since 1901. In that year, only fortya leaseholder, and Parliament ought to seven copyrights were infringed, now do give similar remedies for infringement of fewer than 231 pirated copyright editions copyright as were given if a lease were were known, and 467,575 copies had in any way infringed. The Act of 1842 fallen into the hands of the Metropolitan said that the pirate could be proceeded Police in eleven months. In one week against by civil action, but it was abso- 45,000 copies were seized, and the “king lutely impossible to proceed against a of the pirates” had described these as man who gave no name or address, or only a small toll of the numbers that who gave a false address. A typical might be found. The composer and case had been mentioned in which a man publisher, having invested their brains transferred his business to his wife, and and money, had a right to look for some thus, though continuing to sell pirated protection. Mr. Maybrick had told the music, evaded the injunction. It was

Committee that, on asking the streetobvious that civil proceedings against seller of a pirated work of his who the an anonymous person without means were publisher was, the man said, “Good useless. The Newspaper Act of 1869 had morning,” and ran away too quickly to been held by the Attorney-General not be overtaken. Some better remedy should to apply to publications such be open to the composer other than that music, and the hat of the Attorney- dependent on his ability to pursue the General was necessary to give effect to pirate through the streets of London.

Mr. Cochrane,

same

as

a

a

[ocr errors]

That the law was ineffective was well. Keeper of the Great Seal, the Bishop of known to those who had knowledge on the London, the Chief Justices of the Queen's subject. Sir Harry Poland, Mr. Dickin. Bench and Common Pleas or other desig. son and Mr. Rose had all testified to that nated officials. The Bill in its main prin. effect. They had described the method ciples was one the House would do well adopted by these pirates, and pointed out to adopt. Some of the details would how a man hawking these piracies in the require careful consideration in Committee, street only had a few copies in his pos- especially those having relation to penalsession at a time, which were practically ties. He believed it was in the public of no value, and when he had sold them interest that the law should be clearly drew more out from his store in a depôt defined and its provisions made more close by. Then there was the practice of stringent for the prevention of piracy canvassing from house to house, and of leading to all kinds of fraud and improsoliciting orders through the post, the priety. He hoped the House would give letters being addressed from some small the Bill a Second Reading and refer it to shop where only a few copies were kept. the Standing Committee on Trade. It was hard that the composer and publisher should put their brains into their Question put, and agreed to. work and secure publicity for it at great expense, risking many failures for a per

Bill accordingly read a second time. centage of successes, and that then the pirate should step in and by ingenious' That the Bill be committed to the

Motion made, and Question proposed, means undersell them. Civil actions were

Standing Committee on Trade, etc.". unsatisfactory in their results, for out of twelve Messrs

. Boosey had only succeeded (Mr. Mount.) in recovering any costs in two instances,

MR. CALD WELL objected, and urged and they had spent no less than £500 in that the purely legal character of the Bill doing so. for so small a result, and what did the required consideration by the Committee public gain by buying these cheap productions of copyright music? If it were SiR FREDERICK BANBURY (Cama gain at all, it was one obtained at berwell, Peckham) agreed with this view, great cost, for ultimately it must result and moved the substitution of the Law in starving out the best composers and Committee for the Trade Committee. discouraging all legitimate enterprise in this direction. The hon. Member for

Amendment proposedMid. Lanark had stated that the right of “ To leave out the words "Trade, etc.,' and copyright was not an absolute one. insert the words, Law, etc.'”_-(Sir Frederick

Banbury.)

Question proposed, “That the words MR. CALDWELL: I pointed out that proposed to be left out stand part of the in 1888 Parliament had go whittled down Question." the sole right of representation and performance owing to abuses by the owners MR. GALLOWAY submitted that the of copyright that it was practically Bill dealt with a purely trade matter, and inoperative.

therefore they thought the Grand Com.

mittee on Trade the proper body to deal *MR. COCHRANE said the hon. Member with it. So far as the promoters were had complained also of the prices charged concerned, however, it did not matter for copyrighted music. Did he want it which Committee it was sent to. fixed by some authority; did he desire a return to the Sumptuary Laws ? Really MR. COHEN (Islington, E.), as he was

a great Conservative at heart! member of the Standing Committee on Probably he would like to go back to the Trade, confessed that he felt totally enactment of Queen Anne, under which the disqualified to deal with the intricate copyright prices were ordered to be fixed points of law raised by the Bill. Could at a reasonable figure by the Archbishop not the difficulty be met by nominating of Canterbury, the Chancellor and Lord the President of the Board of Trade to

on Law.

[ocr errors]

represent that Department on the Grand Kingdom. The Bill was not overburdened Committee on Law while the Bill was with clauses : its effective clause simply under consideration ?

proposed that the hours passed by miners

underground in their labour should be MR. COCHRANE said he suggested restricted to eight, and that the proposal that the Bill should go to the Standing should extend to all underground workCommittee on Trade because the question ing in the United Kingdom. Many was one " largely dealt with by that thousands of boys were employed underDepartment.

ground, and he would ask hon. Members

if that fact alone did not constitute one *SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

of the strongest arguments in favour of pointed out that the Standing Committee

the Bill. What were the claims of on Law dealt with shipping questions

miners to this concession from the which were essentially matters of trade.

Legislature ? The first was the large MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan- number employed in the mining industry. shire, Mid.) boped that the Bill would be Then the peculiar nature of their work sent to the Grand Committee on Law. should plead on their behalf, seeing that

so many hours had to be spent in daily Question put and negatived.

labour far from the light of day, and Words added.

amidst great risks and dangers. The

death roll in 1902 totalled 1,172, and how Main Question, as amended, put, and

often did they hear of terrible cases, such agreed to.

as the aged father and mother being Bill committed to the Standing Com- suddenly deprived of all means of support mittee on Law, etc.

by the death at one time of their three sons while working in one mine. Surely

it was not unreasonable to demand that MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL. the daily hours of the underground [SECOND READING.]

labour should be restricted to eight.

Having had but little mining experiOrder for Second Reading read.

ence he was not very well versed in these MR. OSMOND, WILLIAMS (Merioneth- matters; he preferred to quote the shire) said he rose with considerable opinions of three eminent statesmen in diffidence to move the Second Reading of support of these proposals. The late this Bill, not because of the nature of its Lord Salisbury in 1890 said he believed proposal but because he felt his personal that, as a rule, eight hours a day was inability to do justice to all the argu- quite as much labour as the muscle or ments in its favour. It had no doubt tension of the brain of an average man intense interest for all the miners of could give. Mr. Gladstone, speaking at Great Britain, and that interest was West Calder in the same year, said that shared by Members. With the exception though he was not a miner he had been of those in Durham and Northumberland, down a coal pit and had the feeling, the proposal to restrict underground which it seemed to him every man who labour to eight hours a day had the had been in a mine must entertain, that support of the miners of the United eight hours out of every twenty-four

Mr. Cohen.

« 前へ次へ »