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)

304 Finally, even if "two generations of descendants" were a valid basis for extending the copyright term for works of individual authorship, it provides no justification whatsoever for extending the term for corporate authors from 75 to 95 years. We conclude that the "two generation of descendants" argument is invalid on its face, advocates economic inefficiency, fails to comport with basic United States copyright principles, and is applicable at best to the term for individual authors. It cannot serve as a basis for the diminished public domain that the extension would effect. "Harmonization " with European Law The European Union has now directed its members to adopt a life + 70 term of copyright duration. Possibly because of the European namral rights tradition, neither the proposal in Europe nor its adoption was based on a careful analysis of the public costs and benefits of extending the term. Nevertheless, some argue that we must do the same to "protect" United States copyright owners, against whom the "rule of the shorter term" may be used to provide a shorter period of protection in Europe for United States works (life + 50) than is given to European works (life + 70). They also argue that harmonization of the worldwide term of protection is a desirable goal in its own right and that failure to adopt the European term will have an adverse effect on the United States balance of international trade. We first consider the general harmonization goal and, in the next sections, take up the question of the supposed "prejudice" United States copyright owners and the balance of trade would suffer in Europe were we not to follow the European example. Harmonization of worldwide economic regulations can often be useful, especially if differences in legal rules create transaction costs that inhibit otherwise beneficial exchanges. In some cases harmonization can be beneficial even if the uniform rule is in some sense less than ideal. Thus, a uniform fu-st-to-file rule for patents might make sense even if we believe that a first-to-invent rule is better in the abstract, because otherwise United States inventors-the very people whom we are hoping to encourage through the offer of a patent monopoly—might fmd it too burdensome to seek international protection. In that case the uniform rule goes to the very existence of the patent and not simply an extension of the duration of protection. We need not, however, seek uniformity for its own sake, if it means compromising other important principles. If the United States determines that works should belong to the public domain after life + 50 years, no transaction cost problem is posed to United States authors by the longer period in Europe. The ultimate owners of their copyrights will, of course, be able to exploit them for a shorter period, in both Europe and the United States, but that is the result of our policy choice to make the worics freely available and not because of the absence of harmonization. In addition, even if harmonization is desirable, the question remains, who should harmonize with whom? Although doubts were expressed about the constitutionality of a life -I Wrinen Testimony of Intellectual Property Professors Page 13