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)

222 thus, be more likely to make the work available, or would a commercial organization, who might be spurred by rights have the incentive to get the works out? This wasn't just something we considered in my office; every single department of the administration with any involvement in this — the Justice Department, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Education Department, and others — support this view. On balance, we felt that the commercial incentive of the additional period of time warranted supporting the legislation above and beyond even the international implications. Mr. CONYERS. Now my colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner, had observed that his legislation should be reported out or given the same contemporary consideration that the measure before is, and it was my impression that all of that work was in negotiations and that the negotiations weren't as hopeless as they were referenced this morning. And I was just wondering, does anybody have any update, any late flashes that we could be apprised of here? An3^hing you can tell us Ms. Peters. Well, the only part that I know is that negotiations are ongoing and that we would hope to see them continue. Personally, on similar legislation a year ago, I wrote to the then committees basically opposing that kind of legislation. The complaint seemed to be with business practices rather than the way that the performing rights were handling the rights that is rather than with the extent of the rights. I'm somebody who feels very strongly that narrowing the rights with respect — it's called section 110(5)— would violate our international treaty obligations and would send exactly the wrong signal to the rest of the world. Mr. Lehman. The Register has put her finger on something that's extremely important. We already have enough compulsory licenses in U.S. copyright law, and enough difficulties attempting to harmonize on a global basis where it is to our benefit on this basis, I think that Mr. Sensenbrenner's legislation would be ill-advised. However, I don't know that we've cleared that position in the administration. If you have a hearing on it, I'm sure that we will be able to offer more comprehensive testimony. It's important to understand that the performing arts societies are — or at least ASCAP is currently covered under a Justice Department antitrust decree and we have a long history of antitrust regulation. Further, as Ms, Peters points out, the appropriate way to deal with business practices that are alleged to be anticompetitive, is through antitrust law, rather than mixing competition principles with the basic copyright law. Mr. CONYERS. Ambassador, any comments on the above? Ms. Barshefsky. No comments. Mr. CONYERS. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOORHEAD. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions at this time. I do very much support this legislation. I think the witnesses have all very articulately stated the merits for it. Thank you. Mr. MooRHEAD. The gentlelady from Colorado, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee.