The meeting was a continuation of public hearings conducted by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry to receive input from stakeholders regarding the provisions of the proposed Copyright Amendments Bill. On this occasion, it received submissions from artists, composers and the Department of Science and Technology.
Aspire, a South African auction house, submitted that visual artists benefited from a legislated Artist’s Resale Right (ARR) in 80 countries around the world. The ARR provided an intellectual property right for artists to benefit via royalty payments on the sale of their work in secondary markets. Currently there was no legislative framework for ARR in South Africa. There were royalty structures for music, literature and the performing arts, but not for the visual arts. Aspire had introduced its own ARR through an in-house scheme that offered a sliding scale of royalties based on the current European model. Aspire called for amendment to the existing legislation for the extension of royalty rights to visual artists, and proper implementation and administration by a legislated, independent and industry-specific agency or agencies.
In discussion, there were comments and questions by Members about the benefits to descendants and heirs, the impact of technological change, retrospectivity, the implementation of ARR in South Africa, and the benefit of auctions.
The Department of Science and Technology (DST) stated that Intellectual Property (IP), contained two categories – industrial, as in inventions, and copyright, as in literary and artistic works. It challenged a number of provisions in the Copyright Amendment Bill, also with reference to the Indigenous Knowledge (IK) Bill that the DST itself had introduced into Parliament. There were concerns about the involvement of the state and copyright. The transfer of intellectual ownership to the state on the death of a right holder would terminate the custodianship of communities. As there was no definition of “state funding”, work by state-funded organisations, like higher education institutions, which was eligible for copyright, would belong to the State. There was objection to a proviso that indigenous communities had to share a portion of royalties for literary and musical work with someone else. “Personal use” exceptions would make it legal to download music for personal use. The State would own “orphan works” when the author became deceased, instead of copyright ownership being passed on to the deceased’s estate.
Members raised serious concern about the fact that the DST had brought critical remarks about a Bill drafted by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to the Committee, without prior communication between the two departments. There was also concern about conflict between the Bill and the Indigenous Knowledge Bill that the DST had discussed in its submission. The DA had remarks and questions about broad community ownership versus individual ownership of indigenous knowledge. An IFP Member expressed concern about higher education and research institutions having to sign over copyright to the state.
The representatives of South African composers submitted that current copyright law still determined “pay for use”, but in the digital era “fair use” had advantages for multinational technical companies, but could compromise the moral right to earn a living from intellectual property. It was lamented that the Department of Trade and Industry had not hosted a round table event before submitting the Bill to Parliament. Copyright royalties from airplay generated income. A regulative structure and proper copyright legislation could bring about financial stability. There were blurred lines between “fair use”, “fan use” and “unfair abuse”. New songs could be disseminated on devices within minutes. “Fair use” could not prevent a loss of revenue. It was suggested that a clause be inserted into the Bill to the effect that the Minister had to make periodic recommendations about the inclusion of local content.
Members said they were appreciative of the passion shown by the composers. There was agreement with the composers that the refrain of South African artists dying as paupers had to be taken seriously. The Committee assured the composers that the Bill would not be rubber stamped without attention to the challenges artists had to face. There was agreement with the charge that composers had not been sufficiently consulted in the drafting of the Bill. There were remarks and questions about the impact of digital technology, also with reference to mixing and sampling.
Introduction by Chairperson
The Chairperson announced that Mr S Mbuyane, an ANC Member of the Committee, had been involved in a serious car accident, suffering two broken legs and other serious injuries. Ms P Mantashe, another ANC Member, was out of hospital. Ms S van Schalkwyk (ANC) had had to go to a lekgothla, and was on political leave. Adv A Alberts’ (FF+) father was ill. There had been a late apology from the Department of Science and Technology, who would not make it in time to present first, so Aspire Art Auctions would be the first to present. She welcomed members of the DST already present, and Ms Charmaine van der Merwe, Parliamentary Legal Adviser.
Aspire Art Auctions: Artist’s resale rights in South Africa
Ms Emma Bedford, Director and Art Specialist, said visual artists benefited from a legislated Artist’s Resale Right (ARR) in 80 countries around the world. The ARR provided an intellectual property right for artists to benefit via royalty payments on the sale of their work in secondary markets. Currently there was no legislative framework for ARR in SA, though it had been mooted by the existing Copyright Amendment Bill for 5% of work sold in the secondary market. There were royalty structures in music, literature and the performing arts, but no such structure currently existed for the visual and plastic arts, which was also introduced in the Bill.
Aspire had introduced its own ARR through an in-house scheme that offered a sliding scale of royalties on the current European model, offered only to living artists, not to estates, heirs or foundations. SA currently offered no legislative provision for the work of artists to attract royalties from secondary market sales, and current provisions in the Bill had little by way of implementation detail on which agencies would collect royalties and how. Aspire called for an amendment to the existing legislation for an extension of royalty rights to visual artists, and proper implementation and administration by a legislated, independent and industry-specific agency or agencies.
Mr G Cachalia (DA) remarked that according to his train of thought, Aspire was proposing a moral right on the part of artists. Artists had to be rewarded for their work after the initial sale. He understood the moral dilemma. An artist had to sell his properties cheaply, and later they were sold for millions.
Ms Bedford replied that it was the intellectual property of artists that was being discussed. Very often work would be sold for a very small sum at the start. Later, when the artist had made a name, it would be sold for much more, and the artist did not benefit.
Mr B Radebe (ANC) asked if Aspire was a private entity, or whether it received government backing. He asked if it operated only in SA. He referred to the Mbube song (“The Lion Sleeps Tonight”) by Solomon Linda, which was emotionally charged and often used in films. The opening of “Coming to America” was based on it. However, the question was if the family of Solomon Linda benefited. If they did not benefit, it was a travesty of justice. The resale implications bothered him. As the years went by the value of art increased, as had happened to the work of Vincent van Gogh. Descendants had to benefit. He asked what improvement the Bill would bring.
Ms L Theko (ANC) commented that Ms Bedford had stated that there was no legislative framework. She asked how that statement was to be reconciled with clause 6, which provided for royalty.
Mr J Esterhuizen (IFP) remarked that the main goal of copyright law was to protect the artist, but there had been technological changes. He referred to the visual artist Solomon Maqhubela’s work. Images could be made available on line. Creativity had to be rewarded. He asked if the copyright law would do that.
The Chairperson commented that she had followed Mr Radebe’s comments about artists from the past. It was important that the Bill ensured that artists would benefit from what had been done in the past. She asked how the Bill would bring integration. The Bill had to be looked at to see how it could be reworked to capture retrospectivity. Specialists had to provide direction. She asked about ARR in South Africa. Ms Bedford was an auctioneer, and had to answer about the benefits to an artist of using an auction. She asked where Aspire stood in the value addition chain, and the role of auction houses.
Ms Bedford replied to Mr Radebe that Aspire was a private entity. Its business as an auction house was not linked to government. She had worked for the National Gallery before. Aspire had offices in Johannesburg and Cape Town, but the auctions had a wide reach. The auction in Johannesburg had attracted attention from bidders in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Bidders across the globe were interested, and there was increased competition. There was an increasing demand for the visual arts.
The Bill could be improved so that visual artists could benefit from secondary sales. Local artists at first sold at low prices, but when they attracted international attention the market price went up, and artists did not benefit. It was done legally in 80 countries across the world. There were ARRs in the UK, the European Union (EU), Russia, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, but not in the USA. In the USA, there was a strong lobby against it. The problem was how to reconcile artist’s rights in the Bill. The Portfolio Committee (PC) had to say what the right thing to be done was.
Aspire paid artists from its profits. ARRs in the UK could be “Googled.” A legislative body could distribute money to artists. Aspire had worked in the auction field before, and only paid living artists. A body was needed to collect and distribute money. Aspire could not deal with estates. An independent body had to work out who the rightful heirs were. Benefits to Solomon Linda’s descendants had been contested. USA law contested such benefits.
She answered Mr Esterhuizen about the goals behind copyright law. Copyright could protect intellectual property, but could also work against it. If an auction house had to pay for reproducing images, artists who should benefit did not benefit. It would cost more than the profits made. ARR was more equitable for artists to benefit. She did not know how provision for the families of artists who were owed redress, could be put in place. ARR worked for artists. It was affordable to pay living artists. There were strong lobbies against that in the USA. Auction houses had to fight the lobbies against it, and there were similar lobbies in South Africa. To implement ARR locally, it would not work to have a flat rate. Such a rate would benefit artists at the upper end of the market. It was advisable to use the European sliding scale model. Aspire paid 4% up to R50 000; 3% between R50 000 to R200 000; 1% between R200 000 and R350 000; 0.5% between R350 000 and R500 000, and 0.25% above R500 000. Only living SA artists were paid. The work of foreign artists was sold, but they were not paid. SA art was supported.
Department of Science and Technology: Comments on the draft Copyright Amendment Bill
Ms Shumi Pango, Director General (DG), Department of Science and Technology (DST), said it was universally accepted that intellectual property (IP) and associated rights were a critical aspect to innovation and economic growth. Intellectual property was divided into two categories --industrial property, as for inventions, and copyright, as for literary and artistic works. The purpose of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Act was to provide for more effective utilisation of IP emanating from publicly financed research and development (R&D). It provided for the establishment of offices of technology transfer at institutions. The Act applied to recipients of public funding, which included higher education institutions, science councils, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), individuals and companies. The funding agency was the state, an organ of state or a state agency.
The DST had made a number of critical remarks about the Copyright Amendment Bill, including how it contradicted the Indigenous Knowledge (IK) Bill which the DST had introduced into Parliament. A fundamental contention was with the state and copyright. The transfer of intellectual ownership to the state on the death of a holder would terminate the custodianship of communities. There was no definition of what constituted “state funding”, so work produced by state-funded organisations that was eligible for copyright would belong to the state. The DST objected to a proviso that indigenous communities would have to share a portion of royalties for literary and musical works with someone else. There was concern about the introduction of a “personal use” exception, as it would become legal to download music for personal use. Another concern was that the Bill provided that the state could own “orphan works”, where the author was deceased, instead of the copyright ownership passing to the deceased estate. The DST appealed for an amendment that would extend performer protection to include traditional/indigenous performers’ control over copyright.
Mr Radebe said that he was getting worried about the fact that there had been no consultation between the DTI and the DST. The differences were fundamental. The Bill had to go to Cabinet. It was not yet an Act, and problems could be eliminated. Estates were under the jurisdiction of the Master of the Court. There were a lot of sharks in the art world. It was better for it to go to the state, to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.
The Chairperson thanked him for raising the point of lack of consultation. It was a serious matter.
Mr D Macpherson (DA) commented that the IK Bill was concerned with the right of indigenous people to claim copyright. He agreed with the point that individual singers, writers and artists were dying as paupers. Their work was reproduced and copied, and they received no money for that, but he believed the view expressed through the IK Bill was mistaken. IK was linked to a broad ownership concept. People who used indigenous knowledge in plays and other cultural creations had to make investments and do research, and had to have a claim to copyright of IK for the content that they reproduced. The Department was saying that people had to benefit from copyright, and that the wrong people could claim indigenous knowledge as their own. It might be true that there was one shared story, but there were individual interpretations of it. It was not fair to say that it could not be copyrighted, as there were many different views and interpretations. The Department was contradicting itself. It did not agree with section 12 (a) on ‘fair use,’ and the introduction of personal use for indigenous knowledge, as it could be misappropriated. Yet it did not want indigenous knowledge copyrighted. The Department could not have it both ways. IK had to be protected so as to be safeguarded against personal use. He asked for the DST’s views on that.
Ms N Louw (EFF) said that she agreed with Mr Radebe. The DST should have consulted with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Both departments fell under one state. She asked why there had been no communication between the two departments before coming to the Committee. All the recommendations should have been tabled to the DTI, and worked through before they came to the Committee, so that there might be a substantial proposal. While all the “footsy-footsy” was going on, indigenous music in South Africa was being exposed, the most recent example being Louis Matongwe and the Pacific Blanket. It was unacceptable to resort to delaying tactics. People had to benefit. Departments had to communicate.
Mr Esterhuizen commented that inventors and creators would have to sign over their IP rights to the state. The amendment implied that universities would lose universal copyright to the state. Textbooks could be reproduced their thousands, if found to be not reasonably priced. Individuals would lose their profits to the state. Broadcasters believed that they were the owners of copyright. The Bill was of poor quality. It failed to deal with the lack of compliance. Balance was needed. Copyright had to be protected for future creators.
The Chairperson commented that a number of years previously, the DTI had tabled the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill. The Portfolio Committee had gone through it at great length, and had even gone to Geneva for training. After some time, the Bill had been processed and a unanimous position had been adopted. It had gone through the DTI as the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act. She agreed with Members about the DST not consulting with the DTI. There had to be a common position in government to avoid wasting time. The two departments should not avoid each other, but had to find each other, and only then would they be called back. Ms Louw had been correct when she said that there was no time for a lack of agreement. It was like Nero fiddling when Rome was burning. It had been a well documented presentation, and there could be engagement with the acting DG to find a common position. The issues pointed out conflicted with the IK Bill. When two Bills were introduced, it was not in order for them to contradict each other.
Ms Pango replied that there had been a submission about the Copyright Amendment Bill which had not been unlike the presentation of the day. Ms Louw was being unfair. An input had been presented, but the DST did not know if it had been considered or not. The DST could not force the DTI to consider its inputs. The DST was using the PC platform to state its input once again. It was the best that the Department could do.
She referred to ‘orphan’ works. The IK Bill used one criterion, which was to make a work protected in perpetuity. The National Recordal System (NRS) had been developed to prevent orphan works from falling into the wrong hands. The DST was tasked to look at the IK Bill through the IK policy office with respect to orphan works. The NRS documenters were those who would have their work orphaned. The State would act as custodian if the community could not be identified, but when it was identified it would be given back. Knowledge would be protected under the IK Bill only if it was communally owned, but it did not mean that individuals could not be protected. If knowledge was passed from generation to generation, it was not considered individual. If individuals could prove that it was theirs alone, it could be protected under conventional copyright law. However, part of that could be derived from what was communally owned. People would not be forced to admit that IK belonged to the community. There was one system that looked at communality, and another that considered individual ownership. Cultural knowledge and identity, transmitted from generation to generation, would be protected as IK. Otherwise, conventional copyright law applied.
The IK criteria were different. In terms of conventional copyright law, a patent expired after 20 years, and then it was in the public domain. Indigenous knowledge had been there for centuries, so it was not a conventional copyright situation. The aim was to protect into perpetuity, not for 20 or 50 years. The National Recordal System was a voluntary system -- no one was forced to document knowledge -- but if there was an infringement on knowledge and it was not on the recordal system, nothing could be enforced.
Mr Esterhuizen referred to page 13, where it was mentioned that in the case of organisations receiving funding from the state, every work eligible for copyright would belong to the state. It meant that universities and research councils had to register with the state to use their own work.
Ms Pango responded that she was not sure what Mr Esterhuizen implied.
Mr Esterhuizen continued that university academics would lose copyright on their textbooks because it was state funded.
The Chairperson said that she understood what Mr Esterhuizen was saying. The problem had come up in other submissions.
Ms Pango replied that the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Act addressed the issue of publicly funded research, with the understanding that the state did not own intellectual property. Higher education institutions got funding from the state to do research. It had to be put into material form, published, and then a patent could be applied for. The impression was created that it was not possible, because the state owned the IP.
The Chairperson told Mr Esterhuizen that it was not done because researchers wanted to retain ownership. She asked if that clarified matters for him.
Mr Esterhuizen responded that it did not really do so. His comment was a response to what had emerged from submissions by researchers.
The Chairperson requested that Members put questions in writing, so as to get a written response. She understood Mr Esterhuizen’s concern, and it was an important point. The two departments had to discuss the issues with each other.
Ms Louw said that she wanted to present a written submission to both departments.
The Chairperson responded that questions by Mr Esterhuizen and Ms Louw, and anyone who still had concerns, could be expressed in writing. The DST submission had been clearly presented. Questions had to be submitted before the following Tuesday, on the following Monday afternoon. She thanked both departments.
The submission was presented by Mr Gabi le Roux, veteran composer and producer; Ms Ernestine Deane, veteran composer and performer; Locnville, the iconic SA pop duo; Vicky Sampson, veteran iconic artist, composer and performer; and Kwesta Vilakazi, current top SA hip-hop composer and performer. The submission included video footage and personal testimonies in which composers emphasised the value of earnings from royalties.
Current copyright law still determined “pay for use”, but in the digital era the practical implications of “safe harbour” legislation directly resulted in the value gap. “Fair use” had advantages for multinational technical companies, but could compromise the moral right to earn a living from intellectual property. The DTI had to have a round table event before the Bill was passed. Copyright royalties from airplay generated income.
A regulative structure and proper copyright legislation could bring financial stability for artists. Current copyright law did not provide a regulatory structure for reporting and revenue collection from performance of copyrighted songs. There were blurred lines between “fair use”, “fan use” and “unfair abuse”. New songs could be disseminated on devices within minutes. There had to be penalties for unauthorised use. Current copyright law was still very open to non-compliance, especially for live events. “Fair use” would not prevent a loss of revenue. SA hip-hop songs were available free on the internet.
The 25 years assignment -- the Dickens clause -- was outdated, as record labels no longer had to go through massive expenses related to artist development. Most assignments between artists and publishers did not last longer than five years, and composers and their estates were deprived of an income while catalogued works were either deleted or sold off for less than the original cost. Concern was expressed at the fact that artists were not sufficiently consulted in the drafting of the Bill. It was suggested that a clause be included in the Bill to the effect that the Minister periodically make recommendations about the inclusion of local content.
The Chairperson said that it was an amendment Bill, which was currently in Parliament. It was no longer with the Department. It was no longer a draft, as it had been tabled. There were various options. The PC could reject the Bill and send it back to the Department. It could amend 20% of the Bill, or it could amend 60% to 70% of the Bill, and ask for it to be rewritten. The PC had a different style, as it did oversight. Four parties were involved, represented by Mr Esterhuizen (IFP), Ms Louw (EFF), Ms Theko (ANC), and Mr Cachalia and Mr Macpherson (DA). There was a broad range of parties, but the PC could not move backwards. The PC appreciated advice from those who did the work. Protection of performers was catered for. The Copyright Bill was the overarching legislation. Critical issues, like local content, had to be taken forward. Her understanding was that legislation regarding local content was the responsibility of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). She asked the Parliamentary Legal Adviser about that.
Ms Charmaine van der Merwe, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, replied that the Constitution dealt with the functions of departments.
The Chairperson said that the PC had to work within the law. The PC appreciated the innovative approach of the composers.
Mr Macpherson referred to music that was online and digitalised. He asked how it worked in terms of copyright law, if pieces of other people’s music were used in a song. He agreed that it was a tragedy that the Department had not first talked to artists. The composers were not the first to say that they had not been consulted. If it were up to him, heads would roll. He asked who was responsible. The Bill had been put together badly and was unconstitutional. The buck had to stop somewhere. The intentions of the Bill were opposite to what had been put on the table before the PC by the composers. He thanked the composers for expressing their views strongly. The lack of consultation was unacceptable, and he wanted to put that on record.
The Chairperson noted that the Southern African Music Rights Organisation (SAMRO) had originally approached the President, which had led to the drafting of the other Bill. SAMRO had been engaged by the Presidency and the DTI seven years before. The lack of movement on it was an indictment.
Mr Esterhuizen said that sadly, up and coming artists usually did not have bargaining power and signed away their intellectual property to some big name. The Solomon Linda “Mbube” hit was an example of that. Once an artist signed over to a label, there was no legal ground for claiming back. However, were it not for the invention of labels, the Linda song could not have become an international hit. Still, one did not want to see the benefit of blood, sweat and tears taken away. Broadcasters were the biggest culprit. They believed that they owned the copyright, and played songs over and over without paying royalties to the composer. The composer had to regain control of the original.
Ms Theko said that the composers had to appreciate the fact that Parliament was their ally. The submission on copyright had come at the right time, so that politicians could look at the challenges. The composers had to present submissions so that Parliament could help to improve their lives as artists. The Portfolio Committee was committed to help with that. The Bill was being amended because of engagements with stakeholders. The Portfolio Committee was there to represent the artists.
Ms Louw said that it had been a very emotional encounter, and engagements of that nature were rare. It also revealed how Parliament worked. Her party would question the fact that Bills and Acts were written without proper consultation through public hearings. Academics wrote the Bills, and that would continue unless there was a change in approach. Submissions had to be heard and amendments had to be made. It was not in order for politicians to take bread from other people’s tables. It would not do to endorse the Bill. It had to be rejected, or amended if necessary. Parliament was taking too long. Artists were suffering, and public hearings had to be speeded up. There had to be submissions from artists so that the amendments could be made.
The Chairperson said that there was a witness fund which was available to fund engagements with stakeholders. Parliament had gone to communities for the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act. It was assumed that associations represented artists, but then it turned out that they did not. The PC wanted to drill down, but also wanted to expedite the process. The Bill of Rights informed the Bill, but it had been grappled with for too long. She agreed with Ms Louw that what artists were saying had to be heard. Lawyers and academics were needed, but artists also had to be heard. Innovators were needed to surmount obstacles. They had to come forward. The Department and Members could help to produce sound legislation.
Mr Le Roux replied to Mr Macpherson about how copyright worked when there was “sampling”, such as when bits of music were used in another production. A distinction was drawn between physical audio recordings and intellectual copyright. If Kwesta Vilakazi wanted a sample from the 70s, he had to approach the owner of the label for the use of the physical sample, and also had to consult with the publishers of the composers of the original. When there was agreement, composers’ rights were split between the original composer and the current user.
He answered Mr Esterhuizen that there were serious problems with broadcasters. He had been on SAMRO, and understood the dynamics. When tracks were broadcast live, this had to be catalogued. There was a certain level of administration, but public broadcaster rates had not been updated since 1984. There had been a verbal undertaking from a former CEO that royalties paid on broadcasting would be raised. Community stations did not pay royalties. Composers in SA wanted local content at the copyright level. There had been a meeting with the President in 2009 to look at copyright protection in the SA economy. International content outweighed local content. In some years, 80% of performance royalties went offshore. There had been consultation with the interim board of the SABC. Local content could not be forced down people’s throats -- it had to be stretched over a period of time, in a process of restoring the value of South Africa’s cultural products. Citizens had to be brought to love local culture, and to spend money for IP.
Mr Le Roux responded to Ms Louw that artists had to be engaged. The Bill was in Parliament. It seemed that the horse had bolted.
The Chairperson interjected that the horse was “in the stable.”
Mr Le Roux asked that the PC look at the areas highlighted by the composers, along with the academics and lawyers. More work had to be done. He thanked Ms Theko for the undertaking that composers’ interests would be looked after. There were still opportunities available that could be used. Attention had been given to increasing local content since 2015. He suggested that there should be a clause that the Minister had to make regulations from time to time about the quota ratio.
The Chairperson commented that it was fitting to hear beautiful voices in the Women’s Month of August. The music was riveting. The PC would look at other approaches that had a broader reach. Artists had to help develop more robust legislation. There was a long way still to go and matters to be dealt with were complex, but the PC would not simply rubber stamp the legislation. The revolution had been won with music. She asked what was done when DJs mixed music and came up with a sound that was unlike the original. How was that coped with?
Mr Le Roux replied that it was similar to what Mr Macpherson had asked about. There were some unscrupulous disc jockeys (DJs). The club environment was not regulated. In Germany, clubs were regulated. DJs had to list tracks with the number of artists used.
Mr Esterhuizen asked if there was any control over SA music played in Germany or China.
Mr Le Roux replied that collecting societies like SAMRO belonged to international organisations.
Ms Deane added that there were various affiliates, like the German Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs (GEMA) that spoke to SAMRO. The life of songs were extended by DJs, like Killing Me Softly, originally performed by Roberta Flack. Once a song was registered, it could not be reworked without consultation.
Mr Esterhuizen asked how laws would be enforced to prevent artists from getting no compensation for traditional African songs.
Mr Vilakazi replied that Mr Le Roux had explained how sampling was dealt with. If one borrowed and practiced due dilligence, there were steps to follow. The Bill had to incorporate that. U-Tube used music for free, and it was free on the internet. Composers needed protection.
The Chairperson said that the PC would try to protect composers. She thanked the composers for bringing a fresh dimension to public hearings. They had been emotional, but the PC were not robots.
The next day’s proceedings would start with the sub-committee, which would sit in V119. Mr Williams (ANC) would chair the meeting. Work done would be reported on by the coming Friday. A sub-committee on copyright would be formed, chaired by Ms Theko and including herself. Other parties had to decide who would sit on the Committee. It had to meet one hour before the PC. There had to be streamlining to reduce the time spent.
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.