Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-02-24 ============================================================ Michael McDowell (IND), National University of Ireland The context of the amendment is that section 2 of the Bill as proposed by the Minister sets out a series of steps to be taken in the event of a dispute as to equitable remuneration. It states that "equitable remuneration less reasonable collecting costs shall be shared equally as between a performer and an owner of the copyright in a sound recording." Instead of the very vague phrase "reasonable collection costs", the amendment refers to the "deduction of the justifiable and documented costs of collection". At the moment, if you vest in the sound recording copyright owner's organisation - and these are powerful organisations - the presumption that what it says is reasonable, that casts on the artist the obligation to prove it is unreasonable, which is unfair. The second aspect of the amendment is to substitute "collective management organisation" for "collecting society" in section 208(2) of the principal Act. The third proposition is that: Where the method of [dividing or] sharing the equitable remuneration in accordance with subsection (1) is not acceptable to a performer or an owner of the copyright in a sound recording, an alternative method may be agreed by or on behalf of the performer and the owner of the copyright concerned. The Leas-Chathaoirleach will note that under subsection (3C) of the Minister's version, it is provided that: Where a performer and an owner of the copyright in a sound recording do not reach an agreement under subsection (3B), either party may serve a notice, in such form and manner as the Minister may prescribe, on the other party of its intention to make an application to the Circuit Court under subsection (3D) if no agreement under subsection (3B) is reached within 6 months (or such shorter period as may be agreed by the parties) of service of the notice. Under this proposal, what happens then is that where such a notice is served and the period has expired without agreement, either party may make an application to the Circuit Court for an order to determine how equitable remuneration shall be shared between the parties concerned. The term "either party", in this context, appears to mean that the performer or owner of the sound recording are the only parties we are dealing with. The unfairness of that is that performers are not in the same position as PPI or PPL to have solicitors at their beck and call. To cast upon an individual performer the obligation of going to court to establish the divvying up of equitable remuneration is inherently unfair. At the moment, the controller has jurisdiction to carry out this allocation function. No good excuse has been tendered in public, at any rate, for transferring the controller's functions to the Circuit Court. I have a number of points to make about that. What Circuit Court are we dealing with? Why should the controller not carry out this function? Why should it be a court procedure? Why should there be an interparty litigation before a Circuit Court judge? A Circuit Court has plenty of other work without requiring its judges to put on a different hat and start considering the whole question of equitable remuneration between various categories of copyright holders. What is the advantage of this? Is it suggested that when people bring a barrister and solicitor to the Circuit Court, it will be cheaper than appearing before the controller? I do not see why that should be the case. In court, who will have right of audience? Will it be representatives or lay litigants in the form of the performers? Will it be lawyers? I do not see the advantage of giving to the Circuit Court this new function. I look forward to the Minister of State explaining why the Government has considered that a jurisdiction which at the moment operates satisfactorily before the controller should be taken away from a one-person tribunal and vested in the Circuit Court. What Circuit Court are we concerned with? The Circuit Court under the Constitution is permitted on the basis that it is a court of local and limited jurisdiction. What local jurisdiction are we dealing with? Is it based on the local jurisdiction of the applicant or of the company that appears to have copyright of the sound recording? What is the purpose of this change? It is not clear. I ask the Minister of State to explain to us why it is the case that the Circuit Court is now considered to be a preferable, cheaper, more accessible and more just decision-making process than the existing controller. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-02-24/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:41+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-02-24