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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

290 Mr. MOORHEAD. Professor Karjala. STATEMENT OF DENNIS S. KARJALA, PROFESSOR OF LAW, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PROFESSORS Mr. Karjala. Thank you. I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. I will present my views on this legislation and those of a great number of my academic colleagues who work and conduct research on a daily basis in the areas of copyright and intellectual property. Our comments are based on a familiarity with the subject matter and, we believe, a sensitive understanding of how copyright has traditionally sought to balance competing public and private interests. I'd like to begin with a few words about American copyright philosophy and tradition. The special genius of the U.S. copyright system has been its emphasis on an appropriate balance of these public and private interests. Our system has been remarkably successful in promoting the creation of economically and culturally valuable products, particularly in the copyright industries like movies, music, and computer software. This is shown by our current dominant position in international trade in these areas. We should know, however, that our dominance is primarily in current products of authorship. Our system has been phenomenally successful at continuing a supply of new and valuable work. The movies like "The Lion King" and the most recent Sylvester Stallone film, for example, generate vastly more revenues, probably any single one of those movies generates more revenues, than all of the works that are the true focus of this bill, which were produced in the 1920's and 1930's. Nobody has the precise numbers, apparently, but from the numbers we heard this morning, that seems not an unfair estimate. And the creation of these new products is possible because of the rich and vibrant public domain that has been passed down to us and our current creative authors from earlier authors. This valuable source of cultural building blocks is itself a product of our system's careful balance of public and private interests. Our Constitution provides for the protection of intellectual property for limited times 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 upon it. And the most important goal in drawing the balance is that of promoting the creation 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. I'm glad that Representative Conyers has returned. He expressed earlier this morning a special concern for the little guy, and I think that's one of the more important people we're talking about. The person who's out there today trying to create new works needs and wants a vibrant box, if you will, of building blocks out of which new works can be created. I think that it is very important to focus our attention on this difference between old works and new works. In my opinion, the extension legislation would prematurely, and without compensating benefit, abandon our traditional balance in favor of a stronger emphasis on private interests, in particular.