congressional_record: CREC-1998-11-12-pt1-PgE2308-4
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1998-11-12-pt1-PgE2308-4 | 1998-11-12 | 105 | 2 | SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT | HOUSE | EXTENSIONS | ALLOTHER | E2308 | E2309 | [{"name": "John Conyers, Jr.", "role": "speaking"}] | [{"congress": "105", "type": "S", "number": "505"}] | 144 Cong. Rec. E2308 | Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 152 (Thursday, November 12, 1998) [Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 152 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Pages E2308-E2309] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT ______ HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR. of michigan in the house of representatives Thursday, November 12, 1998 Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on October 9, 1998, I inserted a brief statement in the Record regarding S. 505, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. In my statement, I expressed strong support for the extension of the statutory term of copyright protection. I neglected to note how appropriate it was to name the bill after the late Sonny Bono. Although we on the Judiciary Committee are now fortunate to have Mary Bono amongst our ranks, I would like the record to reflect how much we miss Sonny. Members of Congress have very few bills named after them, and the Copyright Term Extension Act is a very fitting tribute to Sonny. But while I am happy to have honored Sonny in such a manner, I am not happy about the gamesmanship that accompanied its passage. The Republican leadership--at the behest of certain large restaurants who object to paying royalties to musical creators whose music is performed in their establishments--kidnapped term extension and used it as a hostage. To liberate the hostage, we were forced to pay a high ransom by attaching a second bill--misnamed ``fairness in music licensing''-- that deprives just compensation to songwriters and composers, particularly those who write as individuals and small businesses. In my statement, I referred to the combined bill as a ``compromise,'' so I want to clarify my use of that term. I used the word compromise not to indicate that the substance of the music licensing provision was arrived at through a fair negotiation between the restaurants and musical creators. Rather, I used the term compromise in a procedural sense, to merely indicate that something had happened to allow S. 505 to pass the Senate, to come to the House floor, and to be acceptable to a large number of legislators. I used the word ``compromise'' as ``a consequence of majority decision making'' to paraphrase a former House number, Abner Mikva. I did not mean to imply that the parties who ultimately must pay the ransom--the hundreds of thousands of songwriters, composers, music publishers and the performing rights organizations, BMI, ASCAP and SESAC, that so ably represent their interests--were willing signatories to the compromise. To the contrary, they were the hostages. They will now pay the price. They are the victims of the legislation and it would be unfair to characterize them, as we often do to victims of crime, as willing participants. If Sonny Bono had been here, he would have reminded us of these facts. His reminder [[Page E2309]] would probably not have saved the hostages, but he would have instructed us, with wit and humor, about what is right and what is wrong. He would have told us that we were wrong to pass the fairness in music licensing legislation. ____________________ |