We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
102
copyright field with a Supreme Court case called Mills Music where I got chewed up on all sides.
But is — Mr. Murphy, are you saying that you think it is all right — we agree that it is all right for the songwriter to be able to cut us out of 19 more years even though we did all the work, exploited it and did all this stuff to make it a successful commercial effort. It is all right to cut us out for 19 more years but not to cut us out for 39 more years?
Is that, in a sense — that that — are you taking the other side, in a sense, of Mr. Becerra's question and wanting the bill to change — whatever publishers were on the board of ASCAP don't reflect your view on thus issue?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. What we are saying is we want a balance of the publishers' rights. If there is a term extension, we would like to see the balance be kept so that the publishers would be able to receive an additional term extension, if you will, as the writers would be.
Mr. Berman. You would be able to if they don't terminate you after the 56 years; right?
Mr. Murphy. That is correct.
Mr. Berman. But if they do terminate you, then you are no longer terminated for the next 19 years before it goes into the public domain. You are terminated for 39 years, and that bothers you?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Berman. Thank you.
Mr. Becerra. I will leave this point, other than to say it almost feels patronizing to think that we need to do something for you if you all don't think it is necessary. So I will drop it for now.
But I am a bit concerned that there may be some songwriters or others who write a copyrightable work that may not find the same protection afforded to them that was afforded in 1976. And it was hotly debated then as to whether the rights should adhere to the owner rather than the author, and the burden is on the author to somehow terminate that right or that extension to transfer that right.
If anyone on the panel is interested in answering this question, if I can get a brief response, we are considering extending for another 20 years; and I am a cosponsor of this legislation to do so. Can we expect that in another 10, 15, 20 years we will be hearing from you all again to extend another 15 or 20 years because people's life expectancy has grown and because Europe is doing something different as well?
Ms. Bergman. I think that most of us have made clear that this request is in response to the life-plus-70 that the European Community will be entering into a month from now.
The life-plus-50 was based on an agreement in Berne, which was to cover two generations. That was the original plan. Two generations now is longer than it was.
Mr. Becerra. So would it be your opinion that if Europe changes its current regimen and says life-plus-90
Ms. Bergman. I think the trade argument speaks to that. I think if, at a certain point, it becomes clear, as it is now to us, that our country will be operating at a disadvantage in terms of the balance of trade, then, yes, I don't see why it shouldn't be reopened. If the