[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 143 (Sunday, October 11, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2070-E2071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. BART GORDON

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 7, 1998

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Title II, the Music 
Licensing Exemptions title in S. 505, the Copyright Term Extension Act. 
Although some characterize this provision as a ``compromise,'' this 
provision is entirely unfair to American songwriters.
  Mr. Sensenbrenner's ``compromise'' on Musical Licensing would exempt 
certain sized bars and restaurants from paying royalties for radio and 
television broadcasts in their establishments.
  Restaurant owners must pay produce vendors for the fruit and 
vegetables they serve, alcohol distributors for the beer and wine they 
sell and furniture suppliers for the tables at which their customers 
sit. It is absurd to suggest that you should not be compensated for the 
use of someone's music. Intellectual property must enjoy the same 
status as real or personal property; a person cannot use or improperly 
interfere with another's property without facing consequences.
  In my home state of Tennessee, music is one of our area's largest 
economic assets, and it is vital that the United States maintain high 
protection and enforcement standards in the U.S. and throughout the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, I have letters from constituent songwriters and Opry 
performers that don't understand why writers of books, movies, 
television programs are all compensated each time their work is 
enjoyed, and songwriters should not be allowed the same protection and 
compensation.
  I believe it is hypocritical of the leadership of this body to pass 
this lop-sided provision, when tomorrow, we bring to the floor the 
conference report on H.R. 2281, the WIPO International Copyright Treaty 
Implementation Act. H.R. 2281 strengthens U.S. copyright laws regarding 
the transmission of copyrighted materials. Tonight, this music 
licensing exemption weakens copyright protection for songwriters and 
their creative works.
  Commerce Secretary William Daley wrote in a letter to Speaker 
Gingrich stating strong opposition to the Sensenbrenner music licensing 
exemption. Specifically, Secretary Daley points out that our trading 
partners will claim that an overly broad exemption violates our 
obligations under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary 
Works and the Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual 
Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement).
  We should be concerned that passage of Title II would sacrifice U.S. 
interests of U.S. music copyright owners abroad in order to satisfy the 
demands for uncompensated use of music domestically. The American music 
industry is the most successful in the world, and royalties from 
foreign performances are an important source of income for U.S. artists 
and composers, who are small businesses too. If we expand the 
exemptions as written, other countries could use this as an excuse to 
adopt exemptions in their own copyright laws, leading to economic 
losses to U.S. music copyright owners in the hundreds of millions.
  Songwriters are small business-persons that are engaged in an 
extremely difficult and competitive occupation. It is often only after 
years

[[Page E2071]]

of struggle that a writer can even begin to make a living.
  As I said before, music is intellectual property--and the owners 
should be paid for the use of their product--particularly when other 
businesses are making money by using their work.
  Finally, I agree with Rep. Mary Bono in hopes that the House will 
revisit this issue and its detrimental effect on American songwriters 
and our international trade agreements in the next session. Enacting 
Title II of this bill is a grave mistake.

                          ____________________