term of 56 years). Finally, effective in 1978, the length of the copyright term was increased so that copyright protection would last either from the time the work was created until fifty years after the author's death or, where the length of copyright protection is not measured by the author's life under the 1976 Copyright Act, 75 years from first publication or 100 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Now, with the introduction of H.R. 989 an increase in the term of copyright protection is being considered by Congress once again.

Each time the term of protection was increased in the past, there appeared to be ample justification for increasing the term. Although today the need to increase the copyright term is not as pressing as it was in 1831, 1909 or 1978, there are several reasons that a copyright term increase may be warranted. Most notably, the bill would provide U.S. copyright owners benefits in other countries and in international fora. Accordingly, we support the twenty-year extension of copyright protection as proposed in H.R. 989.

The primary reason for changing the copyright term by twenty years would be to bring U.S. law into conformity with that of the European Union. The European Union (EU) passed a directive that, inter alia, requires each EU Member State to provide copyright protection for a term of life-plus-seventy years by July 1, 1995. A provision in the EU Directive explicitly requires each Member State to implement "the rule of the shorter term," which prohibits any EU Member State from protecting a work originating outside the EU for the entire life-plus-seventy years term unless the country in which the work originated also provides for a term of life-plus-seventy years. Thus, U.S. copyright owners will only be protected for a term of life-plus-fifty years in the EU, while their EU counterparts will be protected

2

for a term of life-plus-seventy years in the EU - unless the U.S. copyright term is

extended.

If the United States extends the copyright term to life-plus-seventy years as proposed in H.R. 989, the EU Member States would be required to protect U.S. works for the life-plus-seventy years term. Thus, an extension of the copyright term as proposed in H.R. 989 would serve the dual purpose of providing U.S. copyright owners with extended protection in the EU as well as in the United States. This would benefit the copyright owners of many U.S. works by allowing them to exploit their works in the EU and the United States for an additional twenty years and reap the rewards therefrom.

For many other U.S. works the copyright owner will get the benefit of the entire copyright term in the EU regardless of whether the U.S. copyright term is increased. For instance, the term of protection in the EU for sound recordings under the EU Directive is 50 years from publication or creation, while the term of protection in the United States for sound recordings is 75 years from first publication or 100 years from creation, whichever is shorter. As the term of protection in the United States for sound recordings is already greater than the EU grants those works under the Directive, the EU Member States could not apply the rule of the shorter term to sound recordings and the EU Member States would be required to protect U.S. sound recordings for the entire EU term of 50 years from publication or creation. Even though U.S. sound recording producers would not benefit directly in the European Union from a copyright term extension as proposed in H.R. 989, sound recording producers would still benefit in the United States by getting an additional

Extending the term of copyright protection by twenty years may also benefit the U.S. economy and, in particular, the U.S. trade balance. Last year, the U.S. copyright industry contributed approximately $40 billion in foreign sales to the U.S. economy. Since the United States is a net exporter of intellectual property products to the European Union and an increase in the U.S. copyright term would extend the copyright term for U.S. works in the European Union, an additional twenty years of protection would likely increase the trade balance of the United States in the long

term.

Having established that extending the copyright term as proposed in H.R. 989 appears to offer some short and long-term advantages for U.S. copyright interests, it should be pointed out that the U.S. copyright-based industry and the public might benefit even more if the European Union and United States were to harmonize our copyright laws in other areas as well. There are numerous differences between the U.S. and EU copyright laws and many benefits may be had by the U.S. copyrightbased industry and the public from extending the copyright term as part of a comprehensive harmonization agreement with the European Union.

Those that oppose H.R. 989 suggest that the public will be harmed by a copyright term extension. These individuals suggest that works will be cheaper and more widely available once the work falls into the public domain and that the public will be deprived of these benefits for an additional twenty years if H.R. 989 is enacted. This contention may be true in theory, but in reality it may have little significance.

Once a work falls into the public domain there is no guarantee that the work will be more widely available or cheaper. In fact, there is ample evidence that shows that once a work falls into the public domain it is neither cheaper nor more widely

available than works protected by copyright. One reason quality copies of public domain works are not as widely available may be because publishers will not publish a work that is in the public domain for fear that they will not be able to recoup their investment or earn enough of a profit.

There is also no evidence that once a work falls into the public domain that the work will be less expensive than its copyrighted counterpart. In fact, the public frequently pays the same for works in the public domain as it does for copyrighted works. Thus, the public may benefit little from a shorter term. The only parties that benefit from a shorter term are the parties who exploit public domain works. An argument could be made that these individuals are not deserving of the commercial windfall from a shorter term as they have not created any new works for the public's benefit. If anyone is deserving it is the copyright owners because they or their assignors are the ones that have taken the time and effort to create new works for the public to enjoy.

Opponents of H.R. 989 also suggest that an additional twenty years of protection as proposed will not be sufficient incentive to increase the number of works created. They contend that an author would create a new work regardless of whether the term is life-plus-seventy years or life-plus-fifty years. We believe that this "contention misses the point. It is unlikely that an author would create a new work solely because the term was life-plus-seventy years but that very same author would not create a new work because the term would be only life-plus-fifty years. This, however, does not mean that the potential of greater rewards provided by a

copyright term extension would not be an incentive for some authors to create more new works for the public to enjoy.

Granting a copyright term extension as propose in H.R. 989 would provide copyright owners with an additional twenty years in which to exploit their works. The additional twenty years will enable copyright owners to increase the exposure of their works. This would result in greater financial rewards for the authors of the works, which will in turn, encourage these authors to create more new works for the public to enjoy.

In the past, Congress has found it necessary to change the copyright law to adjust to economic, social and technological changes. We are already immersed in a technological revolution that demands we take a close look at our copyright regime and once again alter our copyright laws to keep pace with these technological changes. As we speak, we are at the dawn of the digital age which is generating unprecedented new challenges and opportunities for the copyright world. Congress and the Administration are presently addressing many of these challenges. For instance, there are two bills pending before Congress that would give a limited performance right in sound recordings disseminated by digital means.

Similar to the two performance rights bills, H.R. 989 also recognizes the significance of adequately protecting digital works. Granting a twenty-year copyright term extension will encourage copyright owners to restore and digitize works that are about to fall into the public domain. This will ensure that many celebrated works are preserved so that future generations can enjoy quality copies of these works. Without a copyright term extension, copyright owners will have little incentive to restore and digitize their works. If many of these works are not restored, they might deteriorate over time and our children would be unable to enjoy these works as we have.