Clause 1 - Amendment of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988,
Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill
11:15 am
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
New clause 5 gives the Secretary of State the power, effectively, to revoke a licence. I can see why that is a comfort to publishers and authors, but I am not entirely convinced that I understand why it is a necessary comfort, given that an activity that falls outside the scope of the exemptions in the Bill would clearly be an infringement of copyright. There are court procedures that can be invoked at that stage, moving on to injunction for a repeated infringement. I am not entirely clear—perhaps the Minister can help me—on why the Secretary of State needs these powers. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West because I cannot envisage that the powers would be needed in any circumstances with respect to the bodies that I anticipate would use the measures. Why is an additional comfort required to create the stronger position of the Secretary of State intervening, rather than the courts? It is possible to make an application to the court for infringement of copyright and anything that fell within the scope of the new clause would be actionable because it would be in breach of the Bill's provisions. The provision seems to be otiose.
New clause 6 contains proposed new section 31F(4). It includes the important provision on navigation, but it repeats the provision that I understand to be in copyright legislation already about derogatory treatment. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Daventry referred to with his poetry. I shall express myself in rather less poetic terms.
It is important that copies should not pervert the sense of the original. That is an important protection for publishers and authors to ensure that their intellectual property is not damaged. What is the interplay between new clause 6 and the provision in new clause 1 on a single accessible copy for personal use, which may be made if
''a visually impaired person has lawful possession or lawful use of . . . part of''
a published work? Could it be derogatory to make a copy of part of an integral work?