Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Dublin South-Central · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“In a reply to a parliamentary question on MetroLink in April of this year, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, again stated his belief that the MetroLink terminus can facilitate any potential future MetroLink expansion to serve the south west, south or south east of Dublin should sufficient demand develop. That demand is already there.”
“A millennium and a half later, with Ireland serving as the President of the Council of the European Union, it is the same law we want to see enforced in the era of AI. In the words of the author Scott Turow, in paraphrasing The Atlantic's Alex Reisner, the bold future promised by AI has been "created with stolen words".”
“Tá roinnt samplaí anseo agam. Glacaim leis gur chuir an conradh agus BÁNÚ roinnt samplaí eile chuig an Aire ag léiriú an damáiste a dhéanfaidh sé sin. In ainneoin an méid atá ráite aige, i gceantair áirithe, tá coinníollacha ar leith ann ó thaobh forbróirí atá ag forbairt iliomad tithíochta faoi láthair.”
“Theft is being rewarded and creativity is being punished to the tune of €22 billion globally in music and film, according to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers. The European directives are no longer fit for purpose because of the exemptions granted to train AI.”
“Cloisim é seo. Chuala mé é thar na blianta ó dhaoine a bhí ag iarraidh go laghdófaí teorainn na Gaeltachta. Bhí siad ag iarraidh díriú isteach ar na ceantair a bhí in ísle brí ó thaobh labhairt na Gaeilge chun iad a chaitheamh amach ón nGaeltacht. Bhí siad ag iarraidh go mbeadh an Ghaeltacht srianta go dtí ceantair ina bhfuil 50% ann.”
“Bhí líne den scoth sa leabhar Ag Caint Linn Fhéin , a scríobh Joe Steve Ó Neachtain, laoch an Ghluaiseacht Chearta Sibhialta na Gaeltachta agus ealaíontóir ildánach, "Is é an croí atá i gceol na hÉireann a dhéanann náisiún mór den náisiún beag seo ar fud an domhain." Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam. Tír gan ealaín, tír gan chroí.”
The complete record
Every one of 904 lines we hold for Aengus Ó Snodaigh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 19.
“Tuigim cad atá á rá ag an Aire agus fáiltím roimh an tascfhórsa, ach amháin go bhfuil sé blianta ró-dhéanach do a lán dóibh siúd atá tar éis teacht tríd an córas Gaeloideachais ag an mbunleibhéal, agus nach raibh aon sholáthar dóibh dul chuig meánscoil trí mheán na Gaeilge. Is é sin an Stát ag loic ar na cearta oideachais agus teanga atá na daltaí sin ar fad. Ní mise atá á rá sin, ach an Coimisinéir Teanga. Dúirt an coimisinéir ag an gcoiste Gaeilge, Gaeltachta agus Pobal Labhartha na Gaeilge in 2024, "Ní léir go bhfuil freastal cóir á dhéanamh, áfach, ar an éileamh ar sholáthar na iarbhunscolaíochta lán-Ghaeilge." Ní leor an méid sin.”
“Tá an cheist seo dírithe ar na ceantair pleanála scoile sa Stáit nach bhfuil meánscoil lánGhaeilge iontu agus iad sin a ainmniú, agus ar cad atá ar siúl chun an bearna sin a líonadh agus an t-éileamh atá ann do Ghaelscolaíocht ag an dara leibhéal a shásamh.”
“Deputy Thomas Gould - To discuss the housing aid for older people grant and the provision of new boilers. Deputy Paul McAuliffe - To discuss sanctioned ASD classes in Dublin North-West. The matters raised by Deputies Louis O'Hara, Pat Buckley, Conor Sheehan, John Paul O'Shea and Pat the Cope Gallagher have been selected for discussion”
“Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher - To discuss the new requirement to provide passport ID for travel between Ireland and the UK. Deputy Conor Sheehan - To discuss professional language interpretation in judicial settings. Deputy Eoghan Kenny - To discuss school building projects in County Cork. Deputy Alan Kelly - To discuss the need for increased resources for An Garda Síochána in the mid-west. Deputy Louis O'Hara - To discuss the provision of special education classes across Galway East. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú - To discuss the provision of school accommodation at St. Mochta's National School, Louth village. Deputy Pa Daly - To discuss special needs classes at Ballyduff National School. Deputy Darren O'Rourke - To discuss the additional accommodation project at a Coláiste De Lacy, Ashbourne, County Meath.”
“I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 39 and the name of the Member in each case: Deputy Pat Buckley - To discuss the need for Gaelscoil Choráin, Youghal, County Cork to be included in the DEIS urban band 1 programme. Deputy Pearse Doherty - To discuss the impact of the new PSO contract for flights between Donegal and Dublin. Deputy Malcolm Byrne - To discuss the review of the Garda vetting process and planned measures for simplification. Deputy Joanna Byrne - To discuss implementing the agreed pension payment increases to retired staff of Eir and An Post. Deputy John Paul O'Shea - To discuss the importance of the N20-M20 motorway project for the Munster region. Deputy Albert Dolan - To discuss the allocation of SET and SNA hours for primary schools.”
“Ba chóir don Rialtas an t-airgead ceart a chur ar fáil do na comhairlí contae agus na comhairlí cathracha ionas go mbeidh siad in ann an scéim tenant in situ a úsáid i gceart sna cásanna atá díshealbhú ar tí tarlú do na cíosóirí gan locht. Caithfimid a bheith praiticiúil sa chur chuige atá againn. Caithfimid a bheith radacach chomh maith agus muid ag tabhairt faoin ngéarchéim ina bhfuil an tír seo. Ní seo an leigheas ar an fhadhb atá againn.”
“An t-aon loighic a d'fhéadfadh a bheith taobh thiar de seo ná go bhfuil sé á moladh chun cuidiú leis na tiarnaí talún mhóra - na boic mhóra sna cistí baidhbhe, nó b’fhéidir le bheith níos cruinne, na coistí alpairí. Is iad siúd atá ag sú an t-airgead go smior astu siúd atá ag íoc cíosa. Muna bhfuil na rachmasóirí ag tógáil go leor árasáin nó tithe, is í sin an áit ar chóir go mbeadh an Stát ag cur a ladar isteach. Ba cheart don Stát tithe sóisialta a thógáil é féin agus tithe inacmhainne ar cíos nó le céannacht ar phraghas cóir ar chur ar fáil. Má tá na tiarnaí talún ag díol áitribh toisc an brabús a bheith déanta acu nó toisc an price is right agus iad ag dul ar pinsean, ba chóir don Rialtas féachaint ar iad sin a cheannach.”
“B’fhéidir go mbíonn sé ag labhairt leis na hoibrithe atá ag dul in aois a bhfuil cíos breá orthu faoi láthair atá siad in ann a íoc ach nach mbeidh d’acmhainn acu é a íoc a thuilleadh nuair a théann siad ar phinsean. Beidh orthu brath ar an gcóras tithíocht shóisialta atá cheana féin ag cur thar maoil agus gan aon áit dóibh ann. Muna bhfuil an tAire dall, tá sé féin agus an Rialtas ag glacadh an cinneadh seo lena gcuid súile oscailte go hiomlán. Caithfidh go dtuigeann siad an loitiméireacht a bheas mar thoradh ar an mBille seo: cíosanna agus díshealbhuithe ag ardú; liosta dóibh siúd atá gan dídean, páistí ina measc, ag ardú; imirce ag ardú athuair i measc déagóirí; agus iad siúd atá sna 20idí agus iad siúd atá cáilithe ag bánú na tuaithe agus na bailte tuaithe athuair. Cén fáth? Is í sin an cheist.”
“Tá an tAire agus an Rialtas ag dul sa treo mícheart leis an reachtaíocht seo. Níl siad ach chun tuilleadh praiseach a dhéanamh den chóras cíosanna tithíochta agus cur leis an bhfadhb bhunúsach tithíochta atá sa tír seo. An t-aon leithscéal a bheadh ann as dul sa treo seo ná go bhfuil an tAire dall go hiomlán ar cé chomh dona is atá fadhb na tithíochta faoi láthair agus le blianta anois, agus nach bhfeiceann sé nach bhfuil an Rialtas ach ag cur leis an gcruachás tithíochta. Ní chreidim go bhfuil an tAire dall. Caithfidh go mbíonn sé ag labhairt le gnáthleanúin nach bhfuil d’acmhainn acu cíosanna an lae inniu sa chathair seo, nó lasmuigh den chathair seo, a íoc agus atá ag smaoineamh ar dul ar imirce.”
“After three and a half years, next week or the week after we will reach the cliff edge for the pilot basic income for artists scheme without any sign of the promised successor scheme, nor any clarity as to when the new replacement scheme will open for applications or even what it will look like. I ask the Tánaiste to enlighten us as to the shape, size, cost and timing of the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan's, newfangled basic income scheme for artists. When will it be open for applications? That is the main demand from the artist community.”
“[...] Chomh seafóideach céanna atá an tuairim seo gur féidir leis an scéim feidhm dlí a thabhairt di féin trí leas a bhaint as a foclaíocht féin d’ainneoin cinneadh an Oireachtais an reachtaíocht údaraithe a aisghairm. An fhadhb bhunúsach, mar sin, ná nach bhfuil aon stádas ag na scéimeanna a thuilleadh gan reachtaíocht éigeandála.”
“San idirlinn, an bhfuil sé i gceist leanúint leis an leasú a bhí an tAire ag cur chun cinn maidir leis an mBille a bhaineann le toghcháin Údarás na Gaeltachta? Is féidir é sin a chur chun cinn mar Bhille ann féin agus an reachtaíocht maidir leis na toghcháin a chur ar athló, mar atá déanta ar aon chaoi, mar tá éigeandáil ann anois nach bhfuil aon fheidhm dhlíthiúil ag na scéimeanna. D'fhéadfaí rún nó Bille éigeandála a thógáil os comhair na Dála. Is é sin an rud a tharlaíonn de ghnáth nuair a deir an Ard-Chúirt nó aon áit eile nach bhfuil feidhm dhlíthiúil le reachtaíocht. Is é sin atá an breitheamh tar éis a rá. Mar a dúirt sé: Go deimhin féin, seafóid agus rud nach bhféadfaí a rá is ea an argóint ar fad go bhfuil an scéim fós ag faoileáil os cionn talún agus ag feidhmiú cé gur baineadh uaithi na cosa taca dlí a bhí mar bhonn léi.”
“Ní hamháin nach bhfuil siad foilsithe, in ainneoin gur gealladh dúinn go mbeadh siad foilsithe laistigh de thrí mhí, ach tá an tAire anois ag caint faoi chomhairliúchán. Mar sin, ní bheidh siad i bhfeidhm, de réir cosúlachtaí, roimh dheireadh na bliana seo.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Is léir ón bhfreagra go raibh comhairle dlí i gceist agus gur aithin an Roinn go raibh fadhb bhunúsach ann. Gealladh dúinn nuair a bhí muid ag déanamh plé ar Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla go mbeadh na caighdeáin ann sar i bhfad. Ó thaobh an dlí de, ba chóir go mbeadh siad ann roimh dheireadh 2024. Tá na scéimeanna teanga as ord. Ní ann dóibh. Tá sé seafóideach agus áiféiseach a bheith ag brath orthu. Táthar ag brath ar dhea-thoil nó treoir ón Aire do na comhlachtaí poiblí gur chóir dóibh rud éigin a dhéanamh nach bhfuil go hiomlán dleathach má théitear de réir an méid atá ráite ag breitheamh na hArd-Chúirte. An príomhcheist ná cén uair a mbeidh feidhm dhlíthiúil ag na caighdeáin. Tá an tAire díreach tar éis a rá go dtosóidh comhairliúchán.”
“Tá an cheist seo dírithe ar an Aire toisc an breithiúnas a rinne an Bhreithimh Humphreys san Ard-Chúirt maidir leis na scéimeanna teanga. Dúirt sé go bhfuil sé "seafóideach" agus "áiféiseach" le rá go bhfuil feidhm dhlíthiúil fós acu. Cathain a bhfoilseofar na caighdeáin teanga atá le teacht i gcomharbas orthu siúd?”
“I admit like everybody else it is a complex area in some ways. That is why some of the explanations to the amendments can sometimes be a bit convoluted because it is a difficult area of law. As the Minister of State pointed out, it is trying to ensure that we transpose into law the full effects of an EU directive and that we get it right. In this instance, I do not think we have got it right. We did not get it right in the past. That is why we are at this stage. We are addressing failures in the past. We may be back here again. While I firmly believe the intention is correct, the full effect of it will not be. I am still gobsmacked at the referral of anybody to court when there is an alternative mechanism available, which does not fall foul of the EU directives.”
“They are coming from practitioners, such as the collective management organisations, CMOs, which understand the intricacies of copyright, some of which is very intricate. It is not for you or me. Maybe that is one of the reasons there have not been as many referrals to the controller. Maybe it is because people have not been able to understand the full effect of the failure to get the proper remuneration and income they are due. I hope that before this goes any further than the Dáil and into the Seanad that further examination and additional stress tests are done on the legislation the Minister of State is proposing. Maybe in the Seanad they will take on board some of the proposals I have put here.”
“I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is taking on board that there may be a need for further examination. In some ways, when you put amendments, you hope you are proven right but you are also hoping you are proven wrong because that means the officials and those who are better at drawing up legislation have covered the angles where, on this side of the House, we sometimes see an issue, and have tried to plug a hole that has been exposed. In this instance, I am more confident in these amendments than some of the amendments I tabled in the past over the vast time I have spent here. I was not always as confident as I should have been in tabling those amendments but, in this case, the amendments have been well-crafted and well-considered.”
“They are usually the ones who suffer in the relationships where the greater portion of what is due to them seems to go missing or is reallocated elsewhere rather than being a straight 50-50 split, as it should be. The intention of all ten amendments is to clarify in law. It is a pity that the Minister of State, thus far, has not been willing to take them on board. I hope she will reconsider and take at least this one amendment. It would send a useful message in itself that would address some of the concerns that are out there.”
“We have already seen that both performers and producers have been under severe strain in recent years because of the change in the way people listen to their music and the way copyright has been flouted around the world on media channels. In some ways, this is the clear-up. It is a way to ensure there is a stream of funding for those who are the artists and creatives and are ensuring we can enjoy different music, sounds and expressions. It is also a recognition that those who produce the music also have rights. It is not just one side. I might have come across as reflecting the rights on one side, but the rights of performers are usually the ones that are eroded.”
“Apart from bringing the section into complete compliance with the law as it has been declared by the CJEU to be, bringing the qualification for the right into complete alignment as between performers and producers would obviate any concern that might otherwise remain on the producer side that they need to police performer qualification for the right. That in turn would militate towards a right, more simplified and more efficient process. At the end of the day, we are trying to ensure that in recordings and performance, both sides get what is due to them in a 50-50 split in total and that there is no deviation from that. It is a recognition that exercising the right to remuneration sometimes has to be qualified, protected and clearly stated in law, so there is no attempt by anybody to enrich themselves and bypass the order of things.”
“An amendment giving effect to this criterion of qualification for the right of performers to equitable remuneration is not only required to implement Article 8(2), when it is properly construed in light of the WPPT, but it is the only way in which the Bill can be brought into compliance with the court's second basis for finding the current qualification provisions are inconsistent with the requirements of the directive. That second basis is that the fundamental characteristic of Article 8(2) is that it is a shared right, which does not admit of being enjoyed, in any circumstances, only by phonogram producers. The change proposed to section 288, if made, would achieve a common basis for qualification for both sets of rights, namely, qualification of the sound recording for copyright protection as required by EU law.”
“Irrespective of the place of residence or domicile of the performer or the place where the performance takes place therefore, a performance attracts a right to equitable remuneration for the performer who gave it, once it is incorporated on a protected sound recording. Accordingly, the connecting factor for qualification of performers for the right to equitable remuneration is the incorporation of the performance in question in a qualifying sound recording.”
“As stated in the case, Article 8(2) of the directive, which provides for the right to equitable remuneration, must be interpreted consistently with the provisions of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, WPPT, to which the EU is a party, and which, under Article 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, has primacy over secondary legislation, such as directives. The court went on to construe that the provisions of the WPPT in light of the directive falls to be interpreted. It held that the qualification criteria for the right provided in the WPPT are imported from the Rome Convention, which in turn provides for the right to attach to all performances incorporated on a sound recording that is protected by copyright in a contracting state.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 288 of Principal Act 5. Section 288 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of “, or, it is incorporated in a sound recording which qualifies for copyright protection under Part II of this Act” after “this Chapter”.”. This discrete additional amendment to section 281 is to address the way the Bill, as proposed, is not yet compliant with EU law on the shared right to equitable remuneration under Article 8(2) of Directive No. 2006/115 as declared by the court in RAAP v. PPI and Ireland.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 281 of Principal Act 4. Section 281 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “otherwise authorised it, as specified in that certificate” for “exclusively licensed it, as specified in that certificate”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 280 of Principal Act 4. Section 280 of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (g) of subsection (6): “and (h) where the scheme is intended to include and to be operated not only on behalf of rightsowners who have authorised the applicant to manage the kind of rights intended to be covered by the scheme and that are conferred by this Act, but also on behalf of rightsowners who are unrepresented by any licensing body, information sufficient to satisfy the Controller that: (i) the applicant is, on the basis of its mandates, sufficiently representative of rightsholders in the relevant type of works or other subject matter and of the rights which are the subject of the scheme, in the State; (ii) all rightsholders are guaranteed equal treatment, including in relation to the terms of the licence; (iii) rightsholders who have not authorised the applicant may at any time easily and effectively exclude their works or other subject matter from the scheme; (iv) appropriate publicity measures have been taken, starting from a reasonable period before the works or other subject matter are to be used under the scheme, to inform rightsholders about the ability of the applicant to license works or other subject matter, about the licensing taking place under the scheme and about the options available to rightsholders as referred to in subparagraph (iii); and (v) procedures exist for the negotiation of an equitable split of the cost and any benefit of representing rightsholders who have not authorised any licensing body to manage the rights referred to in this subsection (f) with any other licensing body which applies for registration under this section and which satisfies the conditions of subsection (f)(i) to (iv).”, and (b) the insertion of the following new subsection after subsection (6): “(6A) On the registration or renewal of a registration of as a licensing body: (a) the applicant shall not only have the right to manage the rights of the rightsowners who have authorised it to so act but shall have the right to manage the rights of unrepresented rightsowners in accordance with the scheme in so far as such rights are covered by the scheme as registered by the Controller; (b) the Controller shall issue to the applicant a certificate of registration in such form as the Controller shall determine.”.”.”
“Insofar as a concern has been expressed by the Department as to the right of dissociation correlative with the constitutional right of association, no such concern can arise in circumstances where exercise of extended collective licensing obtains unless and until such a performer grants explicit authorisation to the CMO, to a different CMO or opts out of collective management altogether. It is an entirely protective, non-coercive power which is necessary to properly protect and administer performers' rights to equitable remuneration.”
“This situation contravenes the directive and the Act does not currently facilitate a performers' CMO to step in to cure the contravention unless the producers' CMO makes a contractual arrangement to that effect. That breach of EU law must be brought to an end by the Bill. That is why the amendments were set down. A performers' CMO can satisfy the safeguards conditioning the grant of extended licensing rights for performers. The amendment provides for the grant of registration of a licensing body in respect of a scheme providing for extended licensing rights on the basis of evidence demonstrating compliance with the required safeguards. The controller remains in the role of supervisor of a CMO’s compliance with its statutory requirements under Article 33 of the CRM regulations.”
“I am trying not to delay. As the Act is currently structured, a producers' CMO is put in control of the collection of licence fees to be shared with performers, not all of whom will be represented. In circumstances where the Act does not give performers' CMOs an ability to carry out extended collective licensing, and in the absence of an arrangement between the producers' CMO and the performers' CMO, the producers' CMO conducts extended collective licensing of the rights of unrepresented performers without authorisation and without being in a position to satisfy any or most of the preconditions laid down in the directive for extended collective licensing.”
“The reason is tied to the judgment from Ms Justice Costello in which she indicated that the reason she found against RAAP at that stage was that it had not been clearly stated in law. I cited this finding before. It states: "If the legislature had intended to impose upon those performers representation which they had not sought nor consented to, one would expect this to have been clearly stated". This is trying to ensure that it is clearly stated so there is no confusion and it is not the employer representing both sides in disputes. In this case, it ensures that the correct remuneration is given to both sides. We cannot ensure that happens if we have both sides represented by the same person.”
“The Minister of State said these amendments are outside the scope of the Bill. Obviously they are not because they have not been ruled out of order. They have been found to be in order. The matter is within the scope of the Bill because we are talking about CMOs representing both the producers and the performers. Part of this has to do with who represents the unrepresented, those who have opted out of the CMOs and who are not tied in. As it currently stands, they are represented by the producers. That is like the employer representing the employee in a labour dispute. It is in some ways bonkers. The amendment is to set out quite clearly that the CMOs represent the performers in this instance.”
“It does so conditional on the following safeguards: that the CMO is sufficiently representative, on the basis of its mandates, for the rights under management; rights-holders are guaranteed equal treatment under the scheme; rights-holders who have not given explicit authorisation may quickly and easily opt out of collective management; and effective publicity efforts are undertaken by the CMO to inform rights-holders of their rights, the default administration of them and their right to opt out of the scheme. As the Act is currently structured, a producers' CMO is put in control of the collection of licence fees to be shared with performers, not all of whom will be represented.”
“Collective licensing based on authorisation by rights-holders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering the rights of all performers to equitable remuneration for the reasons outlined in my introduction to these amendments. Article 12 of the DSM directive makes provision for member states to provide for extended collective representation.”
“Recital 45 of the DSM directive reads: Extended collective licensing by collective management organisations and similar mechanisms can make it possible to conclude agreements in those areas where collective licensing based on an authorisation by rightholders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering all works or other subject matter to be used. Such mechanisms complement collective management of rights based on individual authorisation by rightholders, by providing full legal certainty to users in certain cases. At the same time, they provide an opportunity to rightholders to benefit from the legitimate use of their works.”
“We refer the Department to recitals 44 to 50 of the DSM directive. In recital 44, reference is made to collective licensing involving legal mandates or presumptions of representation as "a well-established practice in several Member States". As outlined in RAAP's July memorandum to the Department, such arrangements exist in at least 20 member states of the EU. Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain all provide for mandatory collective management of this right, while Finland and Slovakia make use of a government-appointed entity to manage the rights.”
“RAAP has now specifically asked that this amendment be made to ensure such a facility is clearly stated, not only on the basis that it is necessary to make the Article 8(2) right to equitable remuneration effective for performers as I have outlined, but also to bring an end to the contravention of the directive which arises under the current provisions of the Act and the absence of extended collective representation for performers. In that regard, the DSM directive represents a move from an agnostic position of EU legislation regarding extended licensing of intellectual property rights and refers to the usefulness, and sometimes necessity, of such provision. The focus of the DSM directive is the digital environment but the provisions for extended collective licensing are general in nature.”
“However, the directive left it open to member states to make provision for mandatory, extended or presumptive authorisation of representation by operation of law. A detailed explanation of the law in this regard is set out by Ms Justice Costello in her judgment for the Court of Appeal in Recorded Artists Actors Performers Limited v. Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited in 2023. In the hearing of certain preliminary legal issues only, the judge rejected RAAP’s argument in that case to the effect that section 281 of the Act provided for a presumptive right to act on behalf of unrepresented performers. She said "if the legislature had intended to impose upon those performers representation which they had not sought nor consented to, one would expect this to have been clearly stated”.”
“9, proposes to change section 281 in consequence of this proposal, if accepted. In brief, before the passing of the DSM directive, EU law was agnostic on whether member states made provision for mandatory or extended representation rights for CMOs. It permitted but did not mandate the administration of rights of unrepresented rights holders to protect their interests pending the appointment of a CMO or a decision to self-represent. It ensured everyone was represented or allowed to self-represent if they wished. The collective rights management directive prescribed the nature and effects of the authorisation to be obtained from rights holders by the CMOs in circumstances where national law did not provide for mandatory, extended or presumptive authorisation. The regulations implementing the CRM directive gave effect to those provisions.”
“Amendment No. 6 proposes a new subsection to section 208 to enable performer CMOs to manage the calculation of performers' dues in an orderly way if more than one performer CMO is operating in the State. It is a process that, of necessity, must be carried out by a performer CMO with the necessary information and ability to do so. Amendment No. 8 amends section 280 to provide for extended collective licensing for performer CMOs and to bring an end to extended representation of unrepresented performers by producers’ CMOs in breach of the DSM directive. The proposed amendment to section 280 gives effect to EU law on extended representation and would bring an end to the unlawful extended representation currently arising under the Act. A small additional amendment, No.”
“In making this determination, the Controller shall take all relevant matters into account including in particular: (a) the relative capacity of each licensing body to discharge this function accurately and efficiently; (b) the scope and extent of rightsowner mandates held by each licensing body; (c) the scope and extent of the data available to each licensing body in respect of the performers making or contributing to the performances in respect of which equitable remuneration is payable; (d) protections under Data Protection legislation with respect to the data referred to in subsection (c); (e) rights in the database or databases in which the data referred to in subsection (c) are comprised; and (f) any matter relevant to each licensing body’s compliance with the provisions of the European Union (Collective Rights Management) (Directive 2014/26/EU) Regulations.”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(d) by the insertion of a new subsection (11): “(11) The calculation of equitable remuneration due to each individual performer shall be carried out in accordance with subsection (4) by a licensing body for performers’ rights registered under section 280 in respect of a scheme that includes management of the right to equitable remuneration. Where there is more than one such licensing body and in default of agreement as to which licensing body should undertake the calculation, any such licensing body may apply to the Controller for an order determining the question.”
“It is an extremely unlikely scenario in the rights management environment but my amendment No. 3 deals with that issue. We are trying to predict eventualities. The amendments try to ensure there are no cases in which the controller will not have the necessary powers. As I have said, if the controller finds one way or another, the aggrieved party, if not satisfied, would still have the right to go to the courts. Rather than going first to the courts, which are already full, which cost money and which make awards, we should try to use the mechanisms that are already there. The fact they are there might be a reason not to go to a court but the controller now will not deal with these issues and people will probably go to the courts.”
“It is just strange. All of the other disputes concerning licensing arrangements under the Act will continue to be dealt with by the controller. That also seems to stray into adjudication. That is the concern. Only one part of dispute resolution is being shifted from the controller to the courts. Disputes under section 38 will still be dealt with by the controller. A difficulty arises under the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel in cases where repeated disputes as to the valuation of rights arise between different rights holders or classes of rights holders. An issue has arisen from the provisions of the Act in respect of the controller's ability to determine disputes between classes of rights holders as distinct from disputes between individual rights holders.”
“You can add time limits if things are running on. As the Minister of State was just saying, people still have the right to go back for another adjudication. If people are not happy with the controller, they can go to the courts. That is always your right as an individual, as a collective management organisation, CMO, or as any organisation in the State. You have recourse to the courts but most people do not make use of this if they respect the role of the controller's office. That is why we have argued, both today and in the past, that we should retain the role of controller. If someone can show me where it is failing, I will consider that.”
“The likelihood of somebody returning a year later is as unlikely as somebody taking a case in the first place, unless they have money behind them. That is one of the issues when we resort to the courts. It is not as simple as that. I accept that an individual can take a case but even if a person represents himself or herself where there is a grievance, he or she usually requires legal advice. Legal advice at different levels is expected for different courts. That is one of the reasons we must try to avoid pushing citizens towards courts at different levels. If at all possible, we must try to settle grievances or disputes through arbitration or, in this instance, the role of the controller. It has not been shown that the controller has failed. Given that, why fix something that is not broken? We could enhance the role of the controller.”
“The threshold in the Circuit Court in most regards is for cases over €15,000. It ensures that anybody going to the Circuit Court will require a solicitor and in most cases a barrister also, which adds to the costs. I still believe the Minister of State should take the opportunity to withdraw this change and revert to the role of the controller. She should ensure it is enhanced rather than taking away from it.”
“Why get rid of something that has worked - or rather it has not worked because there have not been cases before it? I think there was one case. Why end a system that works or at least can work to effect the EU directive? Our understanding of the difficulty that the controller experienced in receiving applications for dispute resolution from RAAP was not a lack of capacity to determine them, but the extent to which issues affecting the legal basis for determination of the dispute was still pending before the High Court in the actions taken by RAAP against PPI. lf a role in resolving licensing disputes concerning the right to equitable remuneration was now given to the Circuit Court, it would be the only role allocated to the Circuit Court by the Act. I find it strange that we are trying to burden the Circuit Court with additional work.”
“Insofar as a dispute arises in respect of the methodology and payment of performers, and indeed in respect of any other dispute arising under section 208, this is suitable for expert assessment or arbitration - that is a point that was made in the committee - both of which can be appointed by the controller. Sections 365 and 367 of the Act allow for that. Insofar therefore as there was a concern in the Department that the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland lacked capacity to determine such disputes, that concern is unfounded. That is no more the case than in the Circuit Court, which in the future will have to rely on bringing in outside expertise because there will not be the expertise sitting around waiting on these cases. The Intellectual Property Office can ensure that expert assessments would be got for the arbitration of cases.”
“This is distinguishable from an ability to set aside the statutory share on the basis of one of the beneficiaries being unhappy with it - that is currently provided for in section 3B of the Bill — which would set at naught the protection entailed in the provision for a statutory share. The amendment to subsection (5) would replace section 3B of the Bill and enables an application for dispute resolution. Such an application would require the applicant to set forth evidence to establish the case and would not provide a mechanism to otherwise seek to avoid the application of the statutory share or other agreement between the parties. The amendment would also retain application to the controller as the dispute resolution mechanism for such disputes on the basis set out in the following paragraphs.”