Second Reading Speech on Amendments to IP (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2004 by Minister for Law, Professor S Jayakumar

Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move "That the amendments be read a second time."
Basically, Madam, the amendment is to delete Section 268 from the Bill. We drafted new Section 268 as a savings provision, to cater for the possibility that an investor may have invested resources in a certain work, expecting the copyright term to remain 50 years. We did not want to inadvertently penalise this investor because of the extension of the copyright term to the new 70-year term. Hence, Section 268 would have enabled such an investor to retain his ability to continue with his plans, as long as he pays an equitable remuneration to the right owner.
But we have received further feedback that this provision creates some uncertainty for businesses and that we should avoid creating such uncertainties. After all, the group of investors Section 268 addresses is likely to be very small, if it exists at all.
Madam, this is an issue of extending an existing right, which investors would be familiar with. We are not dealing with the creation of a new right, which had not existed previously. Furthermore, the extension of the copyright term of protection is covered under the US Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the text of which was made public more than a year ago, in March last year. Since then, IPOS and MTI have held many public consultation seminars to discuss the changes to our copyright regime. Any businessman who had plans to invest in copyright works, would have taken an active interest in these discussions, and adjusted his plans accordingly.

Madam, I beg to move the amendment.