Copyright Review Commission Report - ICT Law and Regulation ...

1.4.9. The CRC derived considerable benefit from the reports of three foreign commissions that dealt in recent yearswith copyright issues, namely:1.4.9.1. The Review of Australian Copyright Collecting Societies, a report made in 1995 to the Australian Ministersfor Communications and Arts and Justice by Mr Shane Simpson (the Simpson Report);1.4.9.2. The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, a review commissioned by the British Chancellor of theExchequer and the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Culture, Media and Sport, written by MrAndrew Gowers and published in December 2006 (the Gowers Review); and1.4.9.3. Digital Opportunity, a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, an Independent Report by Professor IanHargreaves, commissioned by the British Prime Minister and published in May 2011 (the HargreavesReport).2 THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND2.1 PRE-1994 NEEDLETIME ASSESSMENT2.1.1. In September 1992, the then Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr D Graaff, MP, referred the questions ofneedletime and a blank tape levy to the Standing Advisory Committee, appointed in terms of Section 40 of theCopyright Act of 1978, of which the chairperson was the Honourable Mr Justice LTC Harms. The relevantproposals were made by the Association of the South African Music Industry (ASAMI). According to theCommittee’s report, it disagreed with ASAMI that the right to needletime was taken away in 1965 becauseParliament succumbed to pressures from the SABC. They attributed the removal of needletime to “the allegedexisting abuse of rights and an intractable attitude of the record industry to agree to a reasonable royalty rate”(the Standing Advisory Committee on the Copyright Act, Report on ‘Needle Time’ and ‘Blank Tape Levy’, 1993).According to the report, the broadcasters had presented the argument against needletime that the promotionalvalue of broadcasting was sufficient compensation in lieu of a royalty. ASAMI, on the other hand, argued thatthe promotional value could be taken into account when a licence was negotiated. The Statutory AdvisoryCommittee concluded that although much was to be said for needletime, a recommendation could not be madeunless a number of matters were cleared up, including: whether performers should share in the income; what the financial implications would be for smaller broadcasters; whether it would hamper the freeing of the airwaves; what the financial implications would be for the country; how performers would gain and how much; and whether the introduction of needletime should not await developments in the US and at WIPO, an agencyof the United Nations (UN), which negotiates and manages the various intellectual property (IP) treaties.- 10 -