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)

141 Mr. MooRHEAD. Ms. Saffer. STATEMENT OF JXJDITH M. SAFFER, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, BROADCAST MUSIC, INC. Ms. Saffer. Good morning Chairman Moorhead and other Members of the subcommittee. My name is Judith Saffer. I am the assistant general counsel of Broadcast Music, Inc., referred to as BMI, and also the president-elect of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. I am here this morning to speak on behalf of the composers, songwriters, and publishers of BMI who are members of the copyright coalition. I wish to express their support for copyright term extension. I am also authorized to advise the committee that another group with which I am associated, the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, 9,000-plus lawyers in the intellectual property field, have also passed a resolution in support of copyright term extension. I am undoubtedly the shortest witness who has testified this morning; so I, therefore, think it behooves me to have the briefest comments. In view of the fact that we are short of time, I don't want to repeat the statements that have been made by other witnesses in support of the copyright term extension. I don't believe that it would benefit anybody to hear me try to articulate the reasons why the bill should be enacted when others have spoken so well before me. It is, in fact, because I sat here listening to those other speakers that I am reminded of exactly why we are here arguing for copyright term extension. I listened to Mrs. Bergman speak so articulately, and I was again reminded when I listened to Mr. Weller, just a moment ago, that we have right here, right now, perfect examples of why copyright term extension should be enacted. It is not simply the points that these individuals made, but it is the way that they expressed them. People such as myself, lawyers, can make the points, perhaps with all the right words, but not with the eloquent words that are really persuasive. It is these individuals, the creators, who should be entitled to the protection that this bill seeks to grant for them. And it seems particularly appropriate that they should get the same kind of protection that the writers and creators of works in Europe receive. I can see no reason why they should be second-class citizens. One of the things that came up during the course of the questioning of the first panel was why the rights of people like Mrs. Bergman and Mr. Weller should be granted additional protection versus the claims of entrepreneurs who wish to benefit from their creativity. And I guess the response that I have to that is that, in balance, if somebody is going to reap the rewards of their creative product, shouldn't it be them and their families? Shouldn't it be them and their children and, yes, even their grandchildren if they are fortunate to have them? There is no indication to me as a consumer — and I am sure to most of you as consumers — that the American public really benefits more from the exploitation of a work once it goes into the public domain. When I bought my ticket to see "Phantom of the Opera" I didn't pay any less money for that than I paid for a ticket for