Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004

COPYRIGHT ROYALTY AND DISTRIBUTION REFORM ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - November 17, 2004)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1417) to amend title 17, United States Code, to replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with Copyright Royalty Judges, and for other purposes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1417, currently under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417, legislation to reform the rate-making and royalty distribution system for compulsory and statutory licenses. The House passed its version of the bill on March 3 of this year by a vote of 406 to nothing. The other body subsequently passed H.R. 1417 on October 6 with certain amendments incorporated into a committee substitute. These changes are acceptable to both the majority and minority members of our committee with the adoption of the enrolling resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, with the adoption of the three copyright compulsory licenses in 1976, Congress contemplated the need for an administrative body charged with periodically adjusting the rates as well as distributing royalties under the respective licenses. The resulting entity was the Copyright Royalty Tribunal or CRT.

Over the next 17 years, however, CRTs were roundly criticized, prompting Congress to reassess the rate-making and royalty distribution construct. This deliberation produced the current system in 1993 that features copyright royalty arbitration panels or CARPs. Eleven years later we are seeking further improvements in response to existing deficiencies in the CARP system.

Among other things, H.R. 1417 addresses the uniform complaint that CARP decisions are unpredictable and inconsistent. This is generally accomplished by changing the structure from one featuring ad hoc arbitration panels to one comprised of three permanent copyright royalty judges or CRJs. To justify the need for these full-time judges and to alleviate overwhelming workloads associated with multiple proceedings that occur simultaneously, the bill staggers the timing during which individual proceedings can be adjudicated.

The bill also addresses the complaint that the process is unnecessarily expensive by eliminating the costs of the arbitrators upon private parties and by creating a specific process to give small claimants a more balanced ability to participate. The bill discourages persons or entities from disrupting the process at the 11th hour by requiring potential participants to show that they have a significant interest in the proceedings. In furtherance of marketplace negotiations, the measure establishes a cooling-off period during which time parties are to focus on reaching their own agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments adopted by the other body that require our further consideration of the bill today concern the scope of discovery in the role of the copyright office under the new construct.

Briefly, the original House version created greater open-ended discovery of relevant material information over a 60-day period. The changes adopted by the other body make it more difficult for a participant to acquire documents and materials other than statements made by stakeholders and witnesses. In addition, another revision specifically limits the number of interrogatories and depositions that each participant may seek. Both of these changes are consistent with the current trend in administrative law that pares the discovery process. This will save participants time and money.

In addition, the other body strengthened the role of the copyright offices relative to the CRJs. This represents a policy preference that deviates somewhat from the House bill which conferred greater autonomy upon the CRJs to make independent decisions.

I am nonetheless satisfied that the changes adopted were born of a legitimate concern that the proceedings would be fairer and more predictable if the Copyright Office retained plenary authority to offer guidance regarding copyright law. This is especially important when novel questions of law arise.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1417 was painstakingly negotiated amongst the various congressional, executive, and industry stakeholders. We have worked in a bipartisan manner and developed a consensus product over a 3-year period that will effectively address an arcane, but important, matter. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1417.

The question was taken.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.