[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2879-S2880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2933. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to clarify
ownership with respect to certain copyrights,
[[Page S2880]]
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we in Congress are tasked in the
Constitution with promoting science and the useful arts through giving
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and
discoveries for a limited time. The first copyright act provided that
the ``limited time'' would be a term of protection of 14 years,
renewable once. Since that time, the copyright term has exploded to 95,
or 120 years, or 70 years after the death of the artist, depending on
the circumstance. I have serious concerns that these lengthy terms tip
the balance toward limiting rather than promoting creativity and
innovation. Unfortunately, a bill--the CLASSICS Act--currently under
consideration in the Judiciary Committee blows past current U.S.
copyright term to provide a windfall to a select few.
The CLASSICS Act (Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs,
Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act) would give up to
144 of exclusive copyright protection for digital transmissions of pre-
1972 sound recordings. Not only that, but it would create a hodge-podge
of State and Federal rights, basically cherry-picking the most valuable
right under the Federal regime and leaving the rest to be governed by
States. This means that if a library wants to make a copy of a
recording, and then digitally transmit that copy, it would have to
navigate two different regimes--creating more uncertainty, not less.
That is why, today, I am introducing the ACCESS to Recordings Act. It
would give artists the full suite of Federal rights, as well as the
uniformity and certainty that goes with the Federal copyright system.
Along with that comes the exceptions and limitations, including those
that enable archivists to preserve recordings, many of which are
starting to degrade in their original physical medium and urgently need
to be digitally preserved. In addition, it provides the same term
available to post-72 recordings--95 years from publication. Let's be
clear that is a significant term of protection. A song recorded in 1960
will enjoy protection until 2055--37 years from now.
I hope that someday, in the not too distant future, my colleagues and
I can sit down and talk about real copyright reform, but in the
meantime, we shouldn't be expanding term and making it more difficult
for users of the copyright system--including both artists and the
public--to navigate their rights and obligations. What I suggest
instead is a straight-forward application of the Federal rules that
apply to post-1972 recordings to those created before that time. We
must remember that copyright is for the public interest, not just for
the enrichment of large corporations. That is why I am introducing the
ACCESS to Recordings Act.
______