Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 849413,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/849413/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 452,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Dr.) Musuruve",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13188,
        "legal_name": "Getrude Musuruve Inimah",
        "slug": "getrude-musuruve-inimah"
    },
    "content": "The Copyright (Amendment) Bill will ensure that there are no brokers in intellectual property. People need to be compensated for their intellectual property. By the time a person is designing an art work, they have not slept; they have spent a lot of time thinking. A person who thinks for three hours is equivalent to a person who works in a farm for two days because they engage their brains to come up with something innovative. It is painful that once they come up with something innovative, someone else benefits from it. Therefore, there is need for protection of people‘s intellectual property and appropriate compensation. If a person comes up with their works which support or develop a nation, they should be compensated so that we support creativity. This will encourage them to develop more content. It is very painful for a person who does not have networks to come up with something original only for it to be taken by another person who benefits from it. This should stop. Issues of revenue should be very clear. An artiste should be compensated with a reasonable amount of money. For example, royalties should not be five per cent; they should be 30 per cent. This is for the purpose of whoever is doing the distribution and all that. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, in many instances, when a person comes up with a song which is played on television, radio and public functions they are not compensated for their work. Therefore, there is need to put mechanisms in place to ensure that people are handsomely compensated for their original works in order for us to encourage creativity amongst people. The Senate Majority Leader talked about the issue of photocopying work for academic purposes. Photocopying is good if it is used for academic purposes but it should not be from cover to cover; it should only be a section of it to help impart knowledge. If photocopying is done from page to page, then students should buy the books so that original owner of the work is compensated. That Clause needs to come out clearly. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, Clause 26 of the Bill on translation of work states that the owner has a right to translate and distribute material to the public and he or she has the copyright. This is very good and I encourage it. One comes up with his or her original work, but he or she does not publish it immediately. However, many years down the line, someone else translate it into another language and publishes it claiming that it is his or her original work. That is very wrong and should not be encouraged. If it happens, there is need to compensate the person who came up with the original idea. It is a good idea that PWDs will easily access literally work and information. In a situation where information will be used for commercial purposes, then this Clause should be amended to provide for the original owner of that information to be compensated appropriately."
}