[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. BOB CLEMENT

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 7, 1998

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my support for copyright 
term extension. Title I of S. 505 extends the term of copyright 
protection by twenty years, from the life of the artist plus 50 years 
to the life of the artist plus 70 years. This copyright term extension 
will bring the United States in line with most of the rest of the 
world.
  However, Title II of this bill contains a gross injustice. Title II, 
inappropriately titled the ``Fairness in Music Licensing Act'', is 
anything but fair. This provision exempts restaurants smaller than 
3,750 square feet and retailers smaller than 2,000 square feet from 
paying royalties for radio and television. As I previously argued on 
the floor of the House when this issue was first raised, the so-called 
``Fairness in Music Licensing Act'' compromises the intellectual 
property rights of this nation's songwriters and assaults their ability 
to make a living. According to the Congressional Research Service, this 
provision would allow more than 70% of bars and restaurants to use 
radio and TV music for free. The earnings of songwriters, composers, 
and publishers stand to be reduced by tens of millions of dollars 
annually. The average songwriter, many of whom live in my hometown of 
Nashville, makes less than $5,000 annually from music royalties. Yet, 
by supporting this provision, we are choosing to take from songwriters 
and give to restaurant owners, who make on average $45,000 annually.
  Title II of this bill also violates our International treaty 
responsibilities. One or more of our trading partners will file a 
complaint in the World Trade Organization. As the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Honorable William Daley, so aptly observed, ``. . . we 
know that our trading partners will claim that it is an overly broad 
exception that violates our obligations under the Berne Convention for 
the Protection of [Artistic and] Literary Works and the Agreement on 
the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The United 
States will lose, and we will be presented with a series of unfortunate 
options: ignore the WTO, incur sanctions, or modify our law. All will 
be contentious and difficult.''
  Finally, I would like to point out that my friends on the other side 
of the isle are tireless in their pursuit of protecting property 
rights. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that intellectual property 
deserves every bit as much protection as tangible property. In 
Nashville, you can now get a bank loan using your songs as collateral.
  In a heartbeat, without informed debate, Congress is taking away the 
property of songwriters and transferring it to restaurants without due 
process of law or just compensation The Fifth Amendment of the 
Constitution, as my colleagues well know, states that ``no person shall 
be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 
law.''
  I am unequivocally opposed to Title II of S. 505.

                          ____________________