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)

158 In 1993, before any legislation was introduced, the Copyright Office initiated a study on duration of copyright which included a hearing as well as a long comment period. I have submitted a detailed analysis and statement for the record. Much of what we learned is reflected in that statement. I will speak briefly now on what I believe are some of the more important factors to be weighed in considering this legislation. This legislation, which appears in part to be an attempt to have equivalent terms of protection with the important countries of the European Union, would increase copyright terms of all works, including existing works, for 20 years. This would be a significant change in our copyright law, and it would have a significant impact on our society. Our Constitution gives Congress the power to grant to authors exclusive rights for limited times to promote the progress of science and the arts. Thus copyright is granted to promote the public interest by stimulating creativity and by stimulating the dissemination of knowledge. Authors are given control over their works as an incentive to produce. This control, however, is for a limited time. After this time, the work becomes part of the public domain and is available to be used by society as a whole. When considering the constitutional mandate, a number of questions are raised. First, is this legislation in the public interest? Will it encourage authors to create and publishers to disseminate new works? If so, at what cost? Specifically, what will be the effect of freezing the public domain for 20 years? Second, does this legislation violate the limited times provision of the Constitution? In attempting to evaluate how extending the term would stimulate creativity, it is difficult to see how moving from a term of lifeplus-50 to life-plus-70 will encourage more authors to write. It could, however, provide additional income that would finance the production and publication of new works. Moreover, I believe there is a broader public interest. Mr. Chairman, in your statement introducing this bill, and again today in your opening remarks, you emphasized the importance of having harmonization of copyright terms of protection among our major trading partners. As you said, conformity vis-a-vis the copyright term, as well as conformity in other areas, provides certainty and simplicity in international business dealings. You also noted that American authors should be given the same protection afforded their counterparts in Europe. I agree with this assessment. The importance of granting American authors the same protection as that granted to authors elsewhere has long been a position of the United States. When the copyright term was first extended in 1832, this was the argument on which the increase was based. The rapidly expanding international markets for copyrighted works, especially in light of the global information superhighway, supports such an effort. Moreover, the reason for amending our law at this time is to bring us into conformity with that of the European Union. Unless the United States extends its terms, our authors and other copyright owners will be denied money that they otherwise would be entitled to receive.