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)

685 Page 1 Received an the Internet PROPOSED EXTENSION OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION HARMS THE PUBUC *The undersigned are all university professors who regularly teach or conduct legal research in the fields of copyright or intellectual property*. United States copyright law is designed to stimulate creativity by affording authors exclusive rights to important uses of their works (such as publication or public performance). As provided in the Constitution, Congress may afford these rights only for limited times. The current copyright system strikes an inspired balance between protecting new works and allowing authors to draw on earlier works that constitute their cultural heritage. Judged by the results, our law has been tremendously successful at stimulating creativity, and United States copyri^t industries lead the world in the production of popular works such as books, movies, and computer programs. Legislation now before Congress (H.R 989, S. 483), if passed, will upset this balance by tacking on an additional 20 years to the term of every copyright, including existing copyrights. Under current United States law, a copyrij^t already remains valid for a period of 50 years after the death of the work's author, or for a period of 75 years afler publication in the case of corporate authors (such as Disney or Microsoft). The proposals would extend these periods by another 20 years, that is, for 70 years after the death of individual authors and to a total of 95 years for corporate authors. Indeed, the protection period for unpublished works would go from 100 to 120 years after creation. Adoption of this legislation would impose severe costs on the American public without providing any public benefit. It would supply a windfall to the heirs and assignees of dead authors (i.e., whose works were first published around 1920) and deprive living authors of the ability to build on the cultural legacy of the past. Intellectual property law rests on a careful balance of public and private interests. Our Constitution provides for the protection of intellectual property for a 'limited term* to encourage the production of creative works. On the other hand, the longer exclusive rights last in a particular work, the more expensive it is for subsequent artists to create new works based on it. The most important goal in drawing this balance is to promote the creatioD and dissemination of information. This, in turn, depends on the existence of a rich •public domain* consisting of works on which contemporary authors can freely draw. All authors, artists, and composers make use of the public domain in creating new works. Current composers rely on themes, concepts, and even actual melodies from classical or folk traditions, but eventually their music too will enter the public domain so that future composers can make further use of their contributions. When Disney makes a delightful animated film out of *Snow White* or *Beauty and the Beast*, the studio is not creating these works from scratch but rather is relying on old folk tales, on which the copyrights long ago expired. In turn, the Disney films themselves will eventually be available for reworking by other creative artists. Basically, copyright is a Twtfgain" that the public makes with its authors. That bargain gives exclusive rights to authors, which result in higher prices to the public, but the public gets more works than would otherwise be available. The longer the exclusive rights last, however, the less each additional year of protection adds to today's incentives, while today's *costs* to the public remain the same (because the extension applies to existing works). We believe that the costs begin to exceed the incentive effects well before the copyright duration hits life + 70 years. To see whether you agree, ask yourself the following question: How many authors would actually say, "Well, I might consider writing another novel if the protection period extended to my great-grandchildren 70 years after my death, but if the monopoly continues only to my grandchildren 50 years after I die, I guess I'll go do something else"? We suspect that few creative authors will be any more productive in response to a 20-year extension of tm already long protection term. Furthermore, the likelihood that a work will remain economically valuable for the extra 20 years is very small. Disney, for example, is quite unlikely to be in