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)

292 [The prepared statement of Mr. Karjala follows:] Prepared Statement of Dennis S. Karjala, Professor of Law, Arizona State University, on Behalf of the U.S. Copyright and Intellectual Property Law Professors INTRODUCTION The proposed legislation (H.R. 989) would extend the term of copyright protection for all copyrights, including copyrights on existing works, by 20 years: For individual authors, the copyright term would extend for 70 years after the death of the author, while corporate authors would have a term of protection of 95 years. Unpublished or anonymous works would be protected for a period of 120 years after their creation. The legislation would also extend the copyright in works that may be as old as our Republic or even older but that were never published prior to 1978 (when these works were first brought into the federal copyright system). Initially, these copyrights would be extended by another 10 years (to the year 2013), and if the copyright owners publish the works prior to 2013, copyrights in these already ancient works would continue in force until the year 2047. We believe that enactment of this legislation would impose substantial costs on the United States general public without supplying any public benefit. It would provide a windfall to the heirs and assignees of authors long since deceased, at the expense of the general public, and impair the ability of living authors to build on the cultural legacy of the past. In following a European model of regulation and rigidity, it would hinder overall United States competitiveness in international markets, where the United States is currently at its most powerful. We therefore conclude that it would be a mistake to extend any of the copyright terms of protection. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Various reasons have been offered in support of the extension proposal: Some say that the extension is necessary as an incentive for the creation of works. Some argue that the current period for individual authors— 50 years after the death of the author-was intended to provide an income stream for two generations of descendants and that the longer human life span now requires a longer copyright term. Some maintain that we should adopt an extended term because the countries of the European Union have done so, in order to "harmonize" our law with theirs. Some claim that the longer copyright term is necessary to prevent royalty inequality between United States and European copyright owners. None of these arguments take into consideration the costs to the United States public of an extended copyright term. Moreover, the arguments are either demonstrably false or at best without foundation in empirical data. If incentives were the issue, there would be no need to extend the copyrights on existing works, even if one were to accept the dubious proposition that the extra 20 years provide an incentive for the creation of new works. If we were worried about two generations of individual descendants, we should prohibit the first generation from selling the copyright outright, and we would have no need to extend the term for corporate authors. If we believe in harmonization, it is in any event not achieved under the proposed legislation nor does supposed royalty inequality provide a basis for extending the term. The discussion below shows the failure of these arguments in detail. It also shows that the costs to the United States general public vastly exceed even the gains to those relatively few copyright owners who would Written Testimony of Intellecmal Property Professors Page 1