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)

57 My testimony today will focus on why this legislation is vital for America's music, and I will do so from my personal perspective as both ASCAP's chairman and as a working lyricist. H.R. 989 proposes to extend the terms of all copyrights in the United States by 20 years. There are two overriding reasons why that is an important idea. The first is economic. Term extension is necessary as a matter of international trade. It is necessary if our intellectual property, which does so much for the American economy, is to be protected internationally. The second is that it is the right thing to do. The United States should do all it can to encourage creativity and to protect intellectual property. Extension of copyright term will serve to encourage the tens of thousands of music creators who struggle to earn a living in this highly competitive business, and for whom the prospect of leaving an asset of their own making to their children and grandchildren is a powerful incentive. Copyright of all forms of property transcends both national and international boundaries. In recent years, we have seen a true internationalization of the demand for and use of copyrighted works. Music, among a wealth of other copyrighted works, flows freely among and between nations. The technological developments which have resulted in the information superhighway, the national and global information infrastructures, will result in even greater ease of access to and commerce in copyrights and copyrighted music on a worldwide basis. The creativity the world wants, as Mr. Valenti so passionately put it, is overwhelmingly the creativity of our country. America's music is what the world wants to hear and our music is far more popular overseas than foreign music is here. That means that we have a very positive balance of trade in music, as in all other copyrighted works. Last year, ASCAP sent $27 million overseas for performance of foreign music here, but we received $103 million for the performance of our music abroad. If we were to count the amounts received by foreign subsidiaries of American music publishers for foreign performances the amount would be much greater. As you know, the European Union has adopted a directive to go into effect 1 month from today, which will make the copyright term throughout the E.U. 20 years longer than it is in the United States. But because of the rule of the shorter term, those European countries will not protect American works for additional 20 years unless our copjTight term is also lengthened by 20 years. I and my American colleagues will have less protection than our European counterparts. And what is worse, we will lose, our country will lose, the 20 years of royalties which we would otherwise earn if our country's copyright term was equal to that of the E.U.'s. ASCAP has calculated that the loss of ASCAP performing rights revenues earned in Europe alone by American writers and music publishers for the oldest 20 years of copyrighted music would amount to about $14 million annually. When we consider that performing rights are half the total income writers and publishers receive, we could estimate that in music alone term extension would mean a trade surplus of about