Copyright term, film labeling, and film preservation legislation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 1734 ... June 1 and July 13, 1995 (1996)

408 Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you. There was one concept that was presented here that I want to ask a couple of questions about, and that's the idea of being able to disregard contracts because they're old or because situations have changed. I leased a piece of property one time for a very small amount of money for a long period of years, and that property became very valuable. The man that leased it from me was able to release it for about four or five times what I had leased it to him. I don't think I'm entitled to that money because I made a contract; things changed, and I don't think I'm entitled to getting additional remuneration because things have changed or because Government actions caused it. I have real concern with rescinding any kind of a contract that is made between two parties. If you've got a 12year-old child, they have to have a legal guardian or it's not a valid contract to begin with. It isn't really — the guardian, on behalf of the child, is making the contract, if there is a contract. Mr. Patry. I'm happy to answer that. There are a few responses. One response is that the origins of these music contracts — and this is in my written statement, pages 2 through 3 — ^you can go back as far as 1919, when a lawyer for a music publishing company said, **You know, even though the Copyright Act was just passed 10 years ago" — and that's when we went to a term of 28 plus 28 years, 56 years — ^"I'm going to put in all of our contracts a provision saying that if at some time in the future, decades, decades later. Congress happens to extend the term of copyright, the publisher is going to get it. What does it cost me? Nothing. The/re words; I can put them down there." And, Mr. Moorhead, they did. They were put in every single music publishing contract. If you wanted to sign a contract, that's what you signed. Did the music publisher bargain for that? Of course not. Did the publisher who purchased the copyright pay for that? Absolutely not. At that time that contract was for 56 years because that's all Congress gave. The person who bought the copyright paid only for 56 years because that's all they could get. I don't think that Congress in 1995 should be governed by what some publishing lawyer did in 1919 to put boilerplate language in a contract. The publisher got everything it could from that contract, 50 years, and nothing more. The second answer is that, yes, parties to private contracts should be able to negotiate good deals, bad deals, and reasonable deals, whatever, but that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is what the U.S. Congress does, and what the U.S. Congress does pursuant to a constitutional provision that says: "You, Congress, have the power to grant copyright to authors to benefit the public." And I think it's very fair for you to say 75 years after boilerplate language was put in, and you're giving a new property right that that right should go to the author. We're not talking about a private deal that you privately have to stick to. We're talking about 75 years later when Congress decides to give new property, because this 20 years is new property. It's going to be exploited now. I think it's fair for you to say, what's the correct public policy in granting new rights, new rights that weren't in existence when that contract was signed. I think under the Constitu