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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

596 10 The problem of inconsistent terms has become even more pressing with the development of new digital technology. In the era of the Global Information Infrastructure, borders are entirely permeable, making it critical that works be protected at the same time everywhere." The House Report to the 1976 Act in this respect was prophetic: "Copyrighted works move across national borders faster and more easily than virtually any other economic commodity, and with the techniques now in common use this movement has in many cases become instantaneous and effortless. The need to conform the duration of U.S. copyright to that prevalent throughout the rest of the world is increasingly pressing in order to provide certainty and simplicity in international business dealings."" Opponents of the legislation argue that while harmonization of term may be desirable, it is not sufficient reason to change U.S. law. They urge that the United States should act as a leader in the international community, not a follower of the E.U.'s agenda. Since our copyright system has been so successful, they suggest that we should persuade Europe to adopt our approach to copyright. The choice of term, however, has little to do with any dichotomy between basic philosophies of copyright, such as natural rights versus economic incentives. The argument is also based on the premise that extending the copyright term would make the United States a follower, while refusing to do so would constitute leadership. But the United States could position itself as a leader in setting an international standard of life plus 70, working with the E.U. to persuade other countries to follow our example. The more fundamental point is that harmonization of term provides a meaningful public benefit, and therefore should be factored into the overall balance of positives and negatives. If the balance of domestic policy is deemed to be uncertain, it would be appropriate to make the choice that achieves this beneficial international consistency. 5 . General arguments Recognizing the theoretical existence of benefits from extension, opponents characterize them as merely speculative. Today there exists a body of works with ongoing commercial value, which are near the end of their copyright term. It is therefore " See Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual Propertv and the National Information Infrastructure: A Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Propertv Rights 135 (July 1994) . " H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess . 135 (1976).