Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: no...@house.gov
Subject: 1998CRH1456A COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT, Part 1/4
Date: 1998/03/26
Message-ID: <1998CRH1456Ap1@us.govnews.org>
X-Deja-AN: 337923097
Approved: gov-us-fed-congress-record-modera...@us.govnews.org (GPO Gateway)
X-Content-Type: Message/Partial; number=1; total=4; id="1998CRH14...@us.govnews.org"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: The House of Representatives
Newsgroups: gov.us.fed.congress.record.house


Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/congress/record/1998/mar/25/1998CRH1456A/part1
Message-ID: <1998CRH1456A@us.govnews.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0

[Congressional Record: March 25, 1998 (House)]
[Page H1456-H1483]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr25mr98-79]



 
                      COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 390 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 390

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2589) to amend the provisions of title 17, 
     United States Code, with respect to the duration of 
     copyright, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Points of order against the amendment printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI 
     are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first of any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 390 is a modified open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 2589, the Copyright Term Extension Act. 
The purpose of this legislation is to extend the term of copyright 
protection in all copyrighted works, that have not fallen into the 
public domain, by 20 years.
  House Resolution 390 provides for 1 hour of general debate to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and provides that it will be considered as 
read.
  The rule further provides that first-degree amendments must be 
preprinted in the Congressional Record. This will facilitate their 
prompt consideration. Last Wednesday, March 18, the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules announced on the House floor that the rule for the 
copyright extension bill may require the preprinting of amendments. I 
believe that this was ample notice to Members who are interested in 
offering amendments on this measure.
  In 1995, the European Union extended the copyright term for all of 
its member states by 20 years, from life of the author plus 50 years to 
life of the author plus 70 years. Therefore, this is not a new issue. 
As the leader in the export of intellectual property, I think it is 
important that the United States extend the copyright term as well.
  The rule waives points of order against the amendment by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) printed in the 
Congressional Record and numbered 1 for failure to comply with clause 7 
of rule XVI which prohibits nongermane amendments. The Sensenbrenner 
amendment involves an issue that has some degree of controversy, 
dealing with songwriters, restaurants and small businesses. However, to 
be fair to those with other viewpoints on the issue, it will be 
possible for Members who wish to amend the Sensenbrenner amendment to 
be able to do so without any special protections.
  In addition, the rule provides for the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole to postpone votes during the consideration of the bill and to 
reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe House Resolution 390 is fair rule. It is a 
modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2589, the Copyright 
Term Extension Act. I believe the underlying bill is very important. As 
for the music issue, I think Members will have the opportunity to vote 
for the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin or alternatives 
proposed by other Members. I think this is a judicious way to handle 
the issue. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for their hard work on H.R. 2589 and 
would urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and the 
underlying bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 390 is a fair rule. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this rule, but I do 
support H.R. 2589, the Copyright Term Extension Act. H.R. 2589 seeks to 
provide important protections for American copyright holders in the 
world marketplace. This legislation will extend the term of

[[Page H1457]]

copyright protection for works created after January 1, 1978, for life 
of the author plus 70 years after death, bringing this protection into 
line with the standard in the European Union. This is an especially 
important protection for U.S. intellectual property since this parity 
will ensure that American works will receive copyright protection equal 
to that received in European countries for European-produced 
intellectual property. Because European countries are huge markets for 
U.S. intellectual property, this protection is worth hundreds of 
millions of dollars for works produced by Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows only for the consideration of any 
germane amendments to the committee substitute which has been printed 
in the Congressional Record. There is no reason for the preprinting 
requirement since the underlying bill is relatively free of 
controversy, and it is for that reason that I only reluctantly support 
this rule. However, the rule also provides for consideration of a 
nongermane amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) by waiving the provisions of clause 5, rule XVI against 
it. Further, the rule does allow for the consideration of germane 
amendments to the Sensenbrenner amendment, and it is anticipated that 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will offer a substitute to the Sensenbrenner 
amendment. Because these amendments relate to music licensing and not 
directly to the issue of copyright protection extension, the 
germaneness waiver is necessary.
  In order that the House may proceed to consider this important 
legislation, Members should support this rule. In the future, however, 
I would hope that open rules might be truly open and not bound by 
unnecessary preprinting requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
for giving me this 2 minutes, and also thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for 
providing this open rule containing a waiver which may be necessary to 
protect a process supported by the chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the leadership of the House. The rule 
guarantees this body the opportunity to provide balance to the 
underlying bill, the Copyright Term Extension Act, with a modest 
package of relief for America's small business.
  The supporters of fairness in music licensing, which is the subject 
of my amendment, believe it complements the Copyright Term Extension 
Act quite fittingly. The underlying bill extends the term of copyright 
for an additional 20 years, thereby permitting copyright owners to 
continue to commercially exploit works that are beginning to fall into 
the public domain.
  My amendment suggests the need to balance this generous expansion of 
rights, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) estimates to be 
worth hundreds of millions of dollars for copyright owners, with a set 
of reforms designed to level the playing field for the users of 
intellectual property.
  Again, I thank the Committee on Rules for offering this open rule 
enabling a fair debate and an up-or-down vote on my amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Copyright Term Extension Act makes an 
important correction in our existing law to ensure that the 
intellectual property of artists across this land is protected, that it 
is not raided and misappropriated by people around the world to their 
benefit, without compensation to the original owner.
  It is therefore particularly contradictory and ironic that this rule 
will attach and permit attachment to this protection of intellectual 
property, what many people have come to call the Music Theft Act, a 
measure that is a separate freestanding piece of legislation that has 
nothing to do with copyright extension, but is being attached to the 
most convenient vehicle to steal the intellectual property of thousands 
of small businesspeople who are song writers in this land.
  This Music Theft Act is based on a very simple premise: If one cannot 
get someone else's property for free, then pass a law to allow them to 
steal it from them. It is particularly ironic that this Music Theft Act 
is being considered here on the floor of Congress at a time when we 
have just completed the great South By Southwest Music Festival that 
pulled together hundreds, indeed thousands of people interested in the 
music industry and what it contributes to the enjoyment of life here in 
America and how it spreads our American culture literally around the 
globe.
  In my home city, the city of Austin, Texas, where that South By 
Southwest Music Festival pulled people from around the world to enjoy 
and build on the success of our music capital, our claim to be the 
``loud music capital of the world,'' we have hundreds of songwriters 
who are small businesspeople who rely on the income that they earn from 
their songwriting to support themselves. They work hard creating a 
product that all of us enjoy, and when someone else uses or enjoys 
their product, they expect to make a profit just like any other 
business. When Joe Ely or Shaun Colvin or Tish Hinojosa go downtown to 
play at a club, they do not do it for free. That is how they earn their 
living. And the same thing ought to apply when music is being broadcast 
by one of those artists in a restaurant. If a business owner is using a 
song writer's property to help that business, then it ought to 
compensate the person that provides, that provided the benefit to them, 
the songwriter who is responsible for creating the work.
  Let us be real clear about what we are discussing. The songwriter's 
property is just that; it is property every bit as real as a trade 
name, every bit as real as the script for a movie or for a new book, 
every bit as real as a new phone system or a copying machine. Music is 
the property of the songwriter who created it. And when music helps 
attract people to a restaurant, and that is what this is all about is 
the desire of the National Restaurant Association to take someone 
else's property for free, they may not offer any free lunch around 
America but they are willing to take for free the property of someone 
else to help them promote their profits in the restaurants.
  Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had it right when he 
wrote many years ago ``It is true that music is not the sole object, 
but neither is the food. . . . The object is a repast in surroundings 
that give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. 
If music did not pay, it would be given up . . . Whether it pays or 
not, the purpose of employing it,'' the music, ``is profit, and that is 
enough. ``
  And that is what is at stake here today, the right of thousands of 
small businesspeople who are creative, who write music, to earn an 
income from doing so.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time, and it may surprise and scare the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) but I actually agree with him on this issue and he is shocked. 
I agree with him on several issues: on South By Southwest; it is an 
incredible festival. But more importantly, I agree about what he is 
talking about are property rights, and I think it is very interesting. 
It is usually us Republicans hurling charges at Democrats, saying that 
they do not respect property rights enough and that they are Socialists 
because they believe the government and others can intervene in their 
own property rights. And yet I find it to be very, very ironic today, 
as we come to the floor and debate a bill that is going to gut the 
property rights of artists, that apparently the belief on the amendment 
actually is the belief that property rights are only important if there 
are supporters' property rights.
  I think the gentleman talked about Shaun Colvin, a young songwriter. 
Last night she performed in Washington, D.C. She is 5 months pregnant, 
she

[[Page H1458]]

won a Grammy; she is still struggling. She is not rich, she is not 
wealthy; and there is going to be an attempt to make these musicians 
out to be rich and famous rock star types. They are not.
  There are a lot of struggling people who have been working 15, 20, 30 
years, working their entire life to build property, intellectual 
property that is every bit as dear to them as real property in our 
districts. And so for us to just gut their ability to earn a living 
because of problems they have done is absolutely ridiculous.
  So I thank the gentleman for his statements, and I am greatly 
distressed that apparently some people in this Chamber only respect the 
property rights of nonsupporters.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to see that not all of the 
concern for music on the Republican side is expressed by the singing 
Senators and that there are other musicians and lovers of music on the 
Republican side that recognize this is basically a property rights 
issue.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. This is an issue that was very important to Sonny 
Bono, and in fact is one of the issues that he talked about the most 
when he was here on Capitol Hill, because Sonny understood, he had been 
struggling his whole life to create songs, to create something that 
mattered, that would have a lasting impact, that is going to last long 
after Sonny has been gone. And so it is not just myself, Sonny 
recognized it, there are other people who recognize that if we are for 
property rights, real property rights, we should be for intellectual 
property rights too.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
390 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2589.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) to assume the Chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1058


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
H.R. 2589 to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with 
respect to the duration of copyright, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Diaz-Balart (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 2589, the Copyright 
Term Extension Act, reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by voice 
vote, without objection. This important and significant bill will give 
to the United States economy 20 more years of foreign sales, revenues 
from books, movies, records, and software products sold abroad.
  We are, Mr. Chairman, by far the world's largest producers of 
copyrighted works, and the copyright industries give us one of our most 
significant trade surpluses.

                              {time}  1100

  Our most valuable economic resource is no longer our industrial power 
and natural resources, but the creative potential of the minds of our 
citizens.
  While our creativity holds America's greatest promise for the future, 
it is also our most fragile commodity, fragile because while difficult 
and expensive to produce and market, it is relatively easy and 
inexpensive to copy and to use for free.
  We must ensure that foreign markets are open to our intellectual 
property exports, and just as importantly, that our copyright 
industries be given reciprocity and the opportunity to compete. That is 
what this bill is all about, Mr. Chairman.
  The European Union countries, pursuant to a directive, have adopted 
domestic laws which would protect their own works for 20 years more 
than they protect American works. This bill would correct that by 
granting to United States works the same amount of protection which, 
under international agreements, requires reciprocity.
  Under the current law, most works receive copyright protection for 
the life of the author plus 50 years. In the case of works made for 
hire, such as a movie, the copyright term typically endures for a 
period of 75 years from the year of its publication.
  H.R. 2589 would bring the term of copyright protection from the life 
of the author plus 50 years to the life of the author plus 70 years and 
of works made for hire from 75 to 95 years from the date of 
publication.
  Trade surpluses are not the only benefit of term extension. It is 
also good for consumers. When works are protected by copyright, they 
attract investors who can exploit the work for profit. That, in turn, 
brings the work to the consumer who may enjoy it at a movie theater, at 
a home, in a car, or in a retail establishment. Without that 
exploitation, a work may lie dormant, never to be discovered or 
enjoyed.
  Now, of course, copyright protection should be for a limited time 
only. Perpetual protection does not benefit society. But extending the 
term to allow a property owner to hand that property down to his or her 
children or grandchildren is certainly appropriate, it seems to me, and 
grants the benefits of exploitation for that limited time.
  I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote yes on this 
bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to appear, along with the gentleman from 
North Carolina, chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property. I should note that this bill is also strongly supported by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The responsibility to protect intellectual property is a very 
important one. As the gentleman from North Carolina has indicated, 
there are both cultural and economic reasons for doing so. The cultural 
reasons are probably more familiar to people, so we stress sometimes in 
this debate the economic reasons, not because we think the cultural 
reasons are less important, but the economic reasons are not always 
fully understood.
  In an evolving world economy, there are areas where Americans will do 
less than they have in the past. We will make unsophisticated products 
in far less amounts than we used to in an internationally competitive 
world. We all know that. People can lament it, people can support it, 
but it is an unchangeable fact. There is simply not going to be in the 
future, as there already has been, a diminution in American products of 
a relatively simple and uncomplicated era.
  On the other hand, America's comparative advantage in the world has 
been growing in the intellectual property area. We not only enrich much 
of the rest of the world culturally, but we enrich ourselves 
economically by the production of songs and movies and a whole range of 
other things.
  Much of our effort is, in fact, to protect our intellectual property 
against theft overseas. Members are familiar with this in the cases of 
piracy and counterfeiting. What we do here is to try to make sure, in 
part, that the people who do the actual creation share in these riches. 
And they are not people who are in the multibillion dollar category 
exclusively and, in fact, not even primarily.

[[Page H1459]]

  Frankly, for the wealthiest of the creators and performers, the 
additional copyright term is relatively unimportant. This becomes 
important precisely for those who make a living as a song writer, but 
do not get rich at it, who make a living in these areas. What we do 
here is to enhance the stream of income that goes to support their 
creative efforts.
  One part of this bill that is particularly important, that was worked 
out in a bipartisan way, in fact, says, in cases where the creative 
person, the song writer, the artist, the writer of the book, where for 
a variety of reasons that person may have signed away some of his or 
her rights, to the extent that we are creating a new set of values here 
in this 20-year extension, we have urged that this be renegotiated and 
that the creators be given a share of the additional 20 years. We will 
be monitoring that carefully. I am confident that we will see the 
creator is better treated.
  Yes, many people write songs and write books because of their love of 
the creative process. Love of the creative process is a great thing. 
But great as it is, it is kind of hard to support a family on it. It is 
kind of hard to sustain that.
  What we are saying is, we want to encourage creativity, not simply as 
a hobby, not simply as something that people who are independently 
wealthy can do on their own time, but as a way for people to earn a 
living to support themselves and their families.
  This bill is an important step precisely for those who are not in the 
wealthy category, precisely for those who are trying to earn a living 
day-to-day by writing songs, by writing books. This enhances their 
ability, and it particularly is relevant when we talk about the 20-year 
extension, about their obligation that they feel to deal with their 
families.
  We are talking here about people earning and then being able to 
transfer to their families, to later generations, this kind of writing. 
It is a very important piece of legislation.
  There is an overwhelming consensus on the part of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, which as some of you might have noticed is not always 
united. The Committee on the Judiciary has, indeed, recently been 
overdescribed as a source of contention and as a place for fighting.
  I must say that, having served on the Committee on the Judiciary for 
18 years, I have yet to see the first pie thrown. I keep reading with 
some disappointment that it is a locus for food fights. They seem to 
have them when I am absent. I am going to insist that I be invited to 
the next one; I have got my own seltzer bottle, and I am ready to come.
  But precisely because the Committee on the Judiciary is composed of 
people who are prepared to engage in the most vigorous democratic 
debate when issues divide us, I think it is noteworthy that here there 
is an overwhelming consensus that for cultural reasons, for economic 
reasons, as a matter of fairness, as the gentleman from Florida was 
saying as I came in, we have come forward with a bill that protects the 
right of the creative people in our society, who so enrich the rest of 
us, to benefit some from that creativity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
his opening statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 
2589, the Copyright Term Extension Act, if, and only if, my amendment 
to ensure fairness in music licensing passes.
  H.R. 2589 provides a very generous windfall to the entertainment 
industry by extending the term of copyright for an additional 20 years. 
That is 20 years more that they can commercially exploit works that 
would otherwise fall into the public domain.
  Mr. Chairman, the Constitution I read suggests the need for balanced 
intellectual property rights between its creators and users. When the 
mechanisms designed to ensure that balance are broken, it is the duty 
of Congress to act.
  Passage of the amendment which I will offer later on today will 
provide that balance. It sends the message that the voice of the tavern 
keeper in Boston, Massachusetts, Greensboro, North Carolina, or 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin is just as important as the parade of celebrities 
that Hollywood has trotted out to support expanding its rights by 
passing term extension and oppose my efforts to enact the modest 
reforms I seek for small business.
  The amendment which I will offer is a compromise version of my 
legislation, H.R. 789, the Fairness in Music Licensing Act and is a key 
vote for the NFIB, the National Restaurant Association, the National 
Association of Beverage Retailers, and the many other small business 
associations.
  They support my amendment because it ensures fairness by providing 
for local arbitration of rate disputes, so small businesses do not have 
to go to New York City and hire an expensive attorney to contest a rate 
that may involve several hundred dollars.
  They support my amendment because it prevents small businesses from 
being forced to pay every music licensing society a fee for music 
already paid for several times over.
  Let me make this point: Under my amendment, nobody gets a free ride. 
The creators of intellectual property are paid. My amendment only 
provides for the exemption for a retailer who has a TV set on or a 
radio set on where the creators of the intellectual property have 
already been paid a licensing fee by the TV or radio station or the 
other broadcast media.
  We should stop the double-dipping, and we should stop the harassment 
of small business operators over the type of programming that they have 
no control over. It does not provide an exemption for tapes or CDs or 
live music performances such as has been described earlier.
  The same groups oppose a window-dressing amendment to be offered 
later on today by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). That 
amendment is unanimously opposed by America's small businesses because 
it reflects a rejected proposal from failed negotiations. It contains 
no local arbitration, and it excludes the vast majority of America's 
small businesses from any relief from the music-licensing monopolies.
  Make no mistake, the McCollum substitute to my amendment is the music 
monopolies' amendment. The McCollum-ASCAP-BMI substitute is a key vote, 
no, by the same groups I just identified in support of my amendment.
  Next time, Mr. Chairman, you walk down Main Street in a town in your 
district, walk with your head held high knowing that you did the right 
thing for small business. Do not cozy up to the same folks who have 
been abusing small businesses in your district and mine for years by 
supporting the McCollum amendment, because it substitutes the interest 
of Main Street for the interest of the music monopolies.
  In the name of balance and support for Main Street U.S.A., vote no on 
McCollum and yes on Sensenbrenner.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) as the new controller of time for the 
minority.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill H.R. 2589, 
Copyright Term Extension. As I believe my colleagues know, Congress is 
obliged under the Constitution to protect intellectual property or, to 
be precise, to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right 
to their respective writings.
  My colleagues may be less familiar, however, with the fact that the 
U.S. also has international obligations to protect copyright. In 1989, 
the United States, in a long-overdue move, became a member of the Berne 
Convention, the century-old international treaty mandating copyright 
rules for member countries. Under the ``rule of the shorter term,'' 
member countries are only obliged to protect the work of foreign 
authors to the same extent that they would be protected in their 
country of origin.

[[Page H1460]]

  Herein lies the problem. Under current U.S. law, copyright term for 
most works is life of the author plus 50 years. For works made for 
hire, such as motion pictures, the term is 75 years. However, in 1995, 
the European Union extended copyright term by 20 years. If we fail to 
extend our copyright term as well, our intellectual property industry 
would lose millions of dollars in export revenues, and the U.S. balance 
of trade would suffer commensurately.
  European Union countries would not have to extend to American works 
the additional 20-year protection that they have already extended to 
European works. This is an outcome we can and must prevent by passing 
H.R. 2589.
  Later in the debate we will be addressing an amendment that I 
strenuously oppose, to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner). That amendment would do great harm to the integrity of 
copyright law, and I will speak to it at the appropriate time.

                              {time}  1115

  But I do not want us to lose sight of the significance of H.R. 2589 
to America's intellectual property interests, both at home and abroad.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Everett). The gentleman from North Carolina has 
21\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 22\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I certainly agree with the gentleman that H.R. 2589 is very 
important for the copyright protection of this country. However, and I 
will speak to this issue a little bit later on during the debate of the 
Sensenbrenner amendment, but a few things were said that need to be 
addressed.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) talked about how the 
McCollum music machine amendment would abuse small businesses. He 
talked about fairness in music licensing. He talked about ``a 
windfall.'' He talked about ``commercial exploitation.''
  Now, we talk about double-speak; who is using the property rights of 
whom to sell beer, to sell food, to sell products in the taverns that 
he spoke about in Anytown, USA? My restaurant owners in northwest 
Florida certainly understand the importance of music in setting a mood 
in a tavern, in setting a mood in a restaurant. They also understand 
what would happen if they turned the music off. Mr. Chairman, that is 
the choice they all have if they do not want to use a product.
  And I hear this talk that somehow supporting property rights now is 
anti-small business. I was elected by small business. Some of my 
biggest supporters throughout northwest Florida own small restaurants 
and own nightclubs, and own other things that come under this bill, and 
they all understand that what sells their product is the mood that they 
set.
  The gentleman from Texas was talking about how music was a backdrop. 
It is. It is a backdrop for these small businesses. Not only is it the 
sound track of our lives and of the movies that we watch, but it is 
also the restaurants that we go into. It sets the mood. And yet, we 
have an amendment to this very, very important bill that would 
absolutely gut the right of those people that are making the property 
that helps people set the moods to sell the products in these small 
businesses that are extraordinarily important to me.
  Let me state again the backbone of my political support comes from 
small businesses, not from PACs, certainly not from unions, not from 
people who want more regulation, and not from people who want this 
Congress to interfere in goodwill negotiations. My people, my 
supporters, are small business people that talk about property rights, 
and they do not talk about property rights only when it suits them 
politically. They talk about property rights for everybody.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand what the gentleman is 
saying, then if someone develops a very successful restaurant and they 
think it contributes to have some music playing there, they do not 
expect to get the electricity for free, they do not expect to get the 
recording device for free, but some of them apparently think that they 
can take the property of the song writer and get that for free.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not think it 
is they. I think it is a very small number of people in Washington, 
D.C. Because again, people that own the restaurants in my district 
understand. I have talked to them about this. I would not come on the 
floor without talking to people that support me.
  They understand, if one pays for the carpet to set a mood and one 
pays for the wallpaper to set a mood and one pays for the lighting to 
set a mood, they also understand the most important thing, again, in 
music is the property rights.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if one of those successful restaurants in the gentleman's district has 
a famous name, I could not take that name and open up right next door 
without stealing their property, could I?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is exactly right.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is that not the same thing as stealing the 
works of people that have devoted significant time to creating 
something we all enjoy?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Again, reclaiming my time, it certainly does, and I 
remember hearing Sonny Bono talk about this, hearing him over and over 
again. He wrote us Dear Colleague letters, he talked about it nonstop.
  Everybody has this image of Sonny Bono as some guy that just sort of 
stumbled into 7 or 8 gold records, that he just somehow, in the late 
1960s stumbled into 7 gold records and a number 1 and number 2 TV show 
that he produced. That is not the case.
  Sonny told me his story, because we were on the Committee on National 
Security together. He told me his basically hard-luck story about going 
out to Los Angeles in the late 1950s, about working hard around the 
clock. I do not know how many people here know who Phil Spector is, but 
he ran around doing errands for Phil Spector, getting coffee, emptying 
his garbage can, do everything he could do, writing songs, to get an 
opportunity to make a little bit of money.
  What Sonny told me then was, he said, the great thing is now, it is 
something that is going to help my kids. Sonny did not realize just how 
pathetic his words were going to be, to help his kids a lot sooner 
unfortunately than any of Sonny's friends would have liked it to be.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, so what the gentleman is saying is, most 
of the song writers in America, they do not begin their careers at the 
Grammy's or in the movies or on television. It is hard work, and for 
every Sonny Bono, there are thousands of other song writers out there 
that are song-writing on the side, and they are out maybe working for 
one of the small businesses whose misguided association has promoted 
this bill.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
exactly right.
  Last night, again I met one of the gentleman's constituents, Shawn 
Colvin. Now, Shawn Colvin just won a Grammy, and everybody thinks she 
is at the top of the world because she won the Grammy. I saw her last 
night, she was in a dressing room.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the gentleman has good taste, better than I realized.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, she was in a 
dressing room smaller than the bathroom of many Members in the Rayburn 
Building, and I will guarantee, she will not make as much money as a 
song writer as any Member in this Chamber today.
  I wrote down the words, when we are hearing about music machine and 
Hollywood stars and blah, blah, blah, I mean this sort of rhetoric to 
make this thing seem, gee, this is going to really help the wealthy 
people. It is not going

[[Page H1461]]

to help the wealthy people. They are going to be making the majority of 
their money on other things, on videos, selling the CDs.
  This helps the people like Ms. Colvin who is 5 months pregnant, who 
certainly, if she was wealthy, would be sitting at home watching TV 
instead of running around trying to make a little bit of money. This 
helps Ms. Colvin, and this helps other people that are struggling to 
get by so that they can work, so that they can devote their life to 
creating artistic works that enhance the quality of life for all of us.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to extend an invitation to the 
gentleman to come down to Austin, Texas, at some time other than the 
campaign season, of course, and enjoy her where she sounds the best. 
But whether we have Shawn Colvin on the radio or Jerry Jeff Walker or 
any other fine artist from down there in central Texas, the average 
cost of using that kind of music. To the small business, when they talk 
about balance, it is only about a buck and a half a day; is it not?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is very 
minimal. I have to say again, I want to finish how I began because 
people seeing the gentleman from Texas and I go back and forth talking, 
it might scare some of my natural constituents.
  I am a friend of small restaurant owners, I am a friend of small 
businesses. My voting record over 3 or 4 years has shown that. In fact, 
I think the gentleman has called me a right-wing extremist because of a 
lot of my votes on less taxes and less regulation, less Federal 
spending. But I also recognize that small business people are people 
that are song writers, they are people that are doing things that may 
not fit our national constituency, and they deserve protection as much 
as landowners deserve protection.
  If we want to talk about something that really hits home with me in 
my district, because I am always fighting for property rights, stopping 
extremists from coming in and having improper takings, I think we can 
apply that to this situation where we have an amendment in the 
Sensenbrenner amendment that constitutes nothing less than an improper 
taking; and where there is a taking, there needs to be just and full 
compensation, and our Constitution says that. That is why I think this 
does violence to the Constitution's provision and the Fifth Amendment. 
It talks about eminent domain, it talks about just taking, it talks 
about property rights.
  That is why I think the far more sensible approach is the approach 
taken by the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). I 
will be supporting his amendment. I ask every single Republican and 
Democrat that cares about property rights, that cares about small 
business owners, that cares about the things that we have been talking 
about we care about for the past 4 years to support Chairman McCollum 
on his amendment when it comes up later on, because it is the wise, the 
fair alternative.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that listening to the colloquy between the gentleman from 
Florida and the gentleman from Texas, I do not know how, but it might 
be appropriate to redesignate the bill before us as the Sonny Bono Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Last week at the Austin Music Awards down at the South by Southwest 
Music Gathering, we had people from all over the world, and of course 
we had to spotlight a little local talent, so the band that was playing 
is Ray Benson's Asleep At the Wheel, and I think what the gentleman 
from Florida and I are trying to do, from very different, perhaps, 
political perspectives on some other issues, is to be sure that this 
Congress is not asleep at the wheel today.
  Mr. Chairman, the basic thrust of the legislation that we are 
debating today is very positive. We are saying that whether one is an 
author or one is a music artist, that one's property ought not to be 
stolen in China or in Europe or someplace else where people take 
advantage and pirate American works. It is a major problem. This 
Copyright Extension Act is basically sound legislation that tries to 
protect the creative work of the American people wherever it might be 
used around the globe.
  But as we reach out to protect our citizens around the globe, we have 
a group, a special interest group that has come in here to the Congress 
and said, well, we want to hang on a little amendment to this, and our 
little amendment is something called the Musical Fairness Act. We 
cannot get it passed on its own, but we want to stick it on this good 
bill and kind of put it in there.
  It reminds me of another one of our Austin song writers, the late 
Stevie Ray Vaughn. To call this the Fairness in Musical Licensing Act 
is to remind me of that line from his song called the Garden of White 
Lies, ``They are pulling wool over our eyes,'' because that is what 
this is all about.
  It is about pulling wool over our eyes, as we consider a good bill, 
to tack on a very bad bill that could not pass on its own because it 
basically is contrary to a long series of American court decisions and 
American recognition that just because one cannot touch property, a 
trade name, a musical work does not mean it is not very real property 
that deserves to be protected by our Congress. And those who would 
steal this property know that they cannot get away with it under our 
existing law, so they want it legalized in the amendment that is being 
offered today.

                              {time}  1130

  Most of the people that are going to be hurt by this musical theft 
amendment are not even full-time songwriters. They work for small 
businesses and large businesses across this country, and on the side 
they apply their creativity talent. Less than 10 percent of the 
American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers earn their 
living full-time from the music that we all enjoy. They are only 
getting a little supplemental income and hoping that one day they can 
become a Sonny Bono, or they can become a Willie Nelson.
  The small compensation that current law requires of those that use 
that music to pay is modest, indeed, compared to the benefit they 
derive. It has been estimated that it costs about $1.58 a day to get 
the benefits of all of those members of the American Society of 
Composers.
  Goodness, do you know in Austin, Texas, you cannot even get a bowl of 
tostados and a little guacamole on the side while you are enjoying this 
music for $1.58. It is not unreasonable to ask that there be some 
compensation to encourage the kinds of musical genius that we have, not 
only in Austin but across this land.
  I have heard from literally hundreds of musicians in this country, 
many of them, of course, from Texas, who have urged the defeat of this 
Musical Theft Act, and who recognized that it represents a deprivation 
of private property rights.
  It is so ironic that some of the people who have spoken out in favor 
of private property rights on this floor would now authorize the taking 
of private rights from the musicians that create so much of what adds 
to the quality of our life, and obviously, flows to the benefit of 
people, regardless of the party label that they wear when they come on 
this floor.
  As with any debate, there is room for some middle ground. Indeed, 
there have been extensive negotiations over this issue, trying to reach 
a reasonable balance. A reasonable balance is not to give the authority 
to steal the property rights of our musicians. But, for example, there 
is a discussion that has gone on that exempts over 65 percent of all 
the drinking establishments in the United States and creates 12 
regional sites for arbitration of disputes.
  On this proposal, actually there was agreement reached with the 
National Licensed Beverage Association, but the National Restaurant 
Association will not have any of it. Why pay something when you can 
change the law and get it for nothing, seems to be their approach. So 
they have been unwilling to join those reasonable organizations that 
would respect private property rights and recognize they ought to

[[Page H1462]]

have to pay something for them, because they want it all their way.
  What we are asking today is that we approve the base legislation, the 
very positive, bipartisan legislation that is being presented here 
today, but not attach to it something that has nothing to do with it, 
that is completely contrary to the purposes of this legislation, and 
will only serve to take away the rights, the creativity, of artists 
across this land.
  I would urge the rejection of that amendment, and the whole concept 
of trying to reach some balance is not achieved by this Musical Theft 
Act, but by the very reasonable approach that follows the agreement 
with the National Licensed Beverage Association that our Republican 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is going to offer, 
an approach that provides a change in the law for small businesses, but 
recognizes that there are many other small businesses out there 
involved in the music industry that need protection, too, and will draw 
a reasonable balance and not permit the theft of music creativity.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me put another oar in the water. I was not even 
going to get into this, but the die has been cast. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough) addressed it very adeptly.
  I resent the fact that this is being portrayed as big business versus 
little business. It is not true. I will compare my voting record 
supporting small business men and small business women with anybody on 
this floor. As far as being a friend to the restaurateurs and the 
restaurants across my district, ask any of them down there. I can 
assure the Members that they will say that I have spoken favorably for 
them.
  They do a good job. Songwriters do a good job. Must we, in this era 
of conflict, have to be opposed to one? Can you not be for the 
songwriter and the restaurateur? It seems to me that you can be. Some 
people, I think, are incapable of that in this current climate and in 
this era. They must be opposed to one. They cannot embrace both, they 
have to reject one. I think that is poppycock. I think the gentleman 
who will come on next is going to have an amendment that will exemplify 
that spirit of compromise, and that spirit of embracing both parties to 
this affray.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), a member of the full committee, who will have a subsequent 
amendment on this matter.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, I would like to point out that we are here today 
primarily to pass copyright extension. While we are going to be having 
this huge debate over the songwriters' music licensing fees, and I am 
going to offer a substitute amendment that has been already widely 
discussed out here, we do not want to miss the point that hundreds and 
thousands, and more than that, hundreds of thousands, really, of 
various parties in this country, individuals, businesses, and so forth, 
who have copyright interests in books, in music, in TV videos, in 
movies, and all kinds of various productions that are copyrighting, 
whatever you can have a copyright for, anything that you write that you 
copyright on, are in great need of a copyright extension that is the 
underlying part of this bill; that is, to lengthen the life of how long 
your property right is protected, how long can you get royalties or 
money for the reproduction, the publishing of the book, if you will, if 
you want to put it back in the old-fashioned term of art; how long will 
you and your family be able to get royalties for that, and when will it 
become public property to which you have lost your personal property 
right.
  We have been waiting around for quite a long time, 5 or 6 years, to 
get this bill to the floor of the House, simply because there has been 
this big dispute between the restaurants of this country and their 
primary association and the songwriters and their primary association 
over the so-called music licensing issue. We need to resolve that.
  When I come out here in a little while, after the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has offered his amendment, that is going 
to basically exempt all restaurants and businesses from having to pay a 
fee that has been paid for years and years to the associations for the 
songwriters' benefit, for every playing of a radio or TV rebroadcast of 
their music, when I come out here in a few minutes to offer my 
substitute, the debate is going to be about certain ways you go about 
giving some relief to some restaurants or some businesses further than 
they already have today.
  There is already an exemption in the law, it has been there a long 
time, for any business of under 1,055 square feet. So if you have a 
really tiny business, you want to play the radio or have your 
television and music on, you do not have to pay a licensing fee.
  The average fee out there on music licensing for restaurants they 
have to pay now is about $30 a month, which for the larger restaurants 
is not a very big deal. For some small restaurants it is a big deal. 
What we have worked out that the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Coble) I believe is going to support and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the full Committee on the Judiciary, and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), is an amendment to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  That is basically the compromise. That we think is where we have 
gotten the product after 5 years of discussion, as close as we can get 
it when the two parties would not come to an agreement, to a technical 
agreement.
  So it is truly a compromise amendment that I am offering. It would 
exempt 65 to 70 percent of all restaurants who are currently paying 
music licensing fees from ever having to pay it, my substitute would. 
That is a pretty big hunk of it. That is certainly all the smaller 
restaurants and quite a number of restaurants of much larger size.
  It would exempt all restaurants, regardless of size, from having to 
pay these fees they have always paid to songwriters if they have as 
many as six speakers to broadcast the radio around in their shop, or 
fewer, or if they have four televisions or fewer. So a lot more are 
going to be picked up. It is hard to measure how many have that. You 
can limit the number of speakers you have in your restaurant and get 
exempted altogether from paying fees that you have currently been 
paying.
  But more importantly, perhaps, than what it does in that regard, it 
provides some balance, because as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) has pointed out, songwriters are small business men, too. 
We are out here trying to protect small business men and give 
exemptions to the truly small restaurateurs of this country, but also 
protect the songwriters so they continue to be able to get their 
livelihood.
  There are thousands of songwriters, most all of whom get their entire 
income and livelihood from the royalty fees they get from the 
copyrighted songs that they write, yet their average income is 
somewhere under $10,000 a year for a songwriter. That is pretty darned 
small. They are not the wealthy people of this Nation. The fees they 
get from the use of their songs in these restaurants, especially in the 
larger chains that are out there, is very important to them.
  As I said, it is about $30 a month that the restaurants pay. It goes 
into a pool of money these associations have, and then those 
associations of songwriters spread the money around and pay a 
proportionate share to all the songwriters who are members. I think 
that is really important to protect. That is what my amendment would 
do, to allow them to continue to have some money from this source from 
the larger restaurants in this country. That is, again, the compromise, 
the balance, in here that is involved.
  I also would like to point out that most songwriters never get a big 
hit. If they get a big hit, a few of them do make some money. I am sure 
there will be somebody out here sometime today pointing out some of 
those people who do. But for every songwriter that gets a big hit and 
makes a lot of money, there are literally a thousand others for every 
one of those who do not. That is what this legislation protects are 
those thousand others, thousands of others, who do not ever get the big 
hit.

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/