Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010

Mr. President, today, the Senate considers bipartisan legislation to make a number of improvements in the way the Copyright Office functions. This bill will also clarify certain areas of copyright law to provide certainty, and make technical corrections to the Code. The Copyright Office has done a terrific job, as it always does, assisting Congress in finding inefficiencies in the law and recommending appropriate changes. I appreciate the Senate acting swiftly to pass this bill.

This bill is another bipartisan effort to improve the copyright laws. Similar to the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendments Act, today's legislation makes commonsense improvements to the copyright system that will make it more efficient. Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to find inefficiencies and correct them. We are doing that today.

The provisions of the bill fall into three categories: those designed to make the Office's operations more efficient; those designed to clarify issues of copyright law made unclear either by recent court decisions or by ambiguities in the statute; and those that are technical.

In the first category, the Copyright Office has requested two statutory changes that will facilitate their transition to digital files and record keeping. These changes will also make it easier for filers to submit documents electronically.

In the second category, the bill clarifies, for instance, that the exclusive licensee of a work may further license the work in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. There are inefficiencies that arise from a lack of clarity in the statute, particularly as circuit splits arise. The bill makes other clarifications, such as that the distribution of a phonorecord prior to 1978 shall not constitute a publication of a dramatic and literary work included in

it. Congress made this clarification with respect to musical works in 1997, and we do so with respect to other works today.

In the third category, the bill includes numerous technical corrections. Finally, this legislation fulfills a commitment I made to the chairman and ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary just before the House passed the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendments Act. The chairman and ranking member suggested that we strike the words ``by corporations'' from section 4 of that law. I agreed, and offered to include such an amendment in subsequent legislation. That change is included in this bill.

I am pleased to be joined by the Judiciary Committee ranking member, Senator Sessions, in sponsoring this legislation. This is a bipartisan effort. Just as we acted quickly to pass the Trademark Technical and Confirming Amendments Act earlier this year, I hope Congress will come together to promptly send this legislation to the President to be signed into law.

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

The copyright bill before us today is an important housekeeping measure that contains largely technical and clarifying amendments to title 17 of the United States Code. For the few changes that are more substantive in nature, they are noncontroversial and are recognized as improvements to a code that is all too often perceived as complex.

S. 3689, the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010, was originally introduced and passed by the other body on the 2nd day of August. Since that time, the House Committee on the Judiciary has worked in a bipartisan manner to consider the measure and to incorporate modest improvements to the bill.

While I expect the majority to detail most of the bill's provisions, I do want to note some significant provisions, including an important change from the measure that passed the other body in August. That change is in the deletion of language contained in section 4(a) that would amend the Copyright Act to permit the owner of an exclusive right to sublicense that right or further transfer it if the original copyright owner had not expressly prohibited these actions in a prior written agreement.

This provision raised a number of concerns among copyright owners who feared that those who had relied on a prior judicial decision in the case of Gardner v. Nike might be disadvantaged by such a change. In recognition of these serious concerns, both the chairman and ranking member agreed this issue ought not be addressed in this measure.

Another substantive improvement that is worth noting is contained in section 5(b) of the bill, as amended. That provision makes clear that regulations issued by the copyright royalty judges are to be approved by the Librarian of Congress and subject to review of Federal courts.

This bill also contains one amendment to trademark as opposed to copyright law. That amendment, which is contained in section 6(h), amends a study requirement that was included in Public Law 111-146, the Trademark Technical Amendments Act, earlier this year.

In closing, the purpose of S. 3689, the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act of 2010, is to make modest but needed changes to the Copyright Act. I urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass the bill with the amendments contained herein.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3689) to clarify, improve, and correct the laws relating to copyrights, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material to the measure under discussion.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this measure, entitled the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act, is a commonsense, proactive response to unintended errors and confusion in copyright law. This bill updates and improves the way the Copyright Office conducts its business by making some changes, mainly streamlining the copyright registry process by authorizing the Copyright Office to accept electronic signatures when users file documents. It also eliminates the requirement that the Copyright Office keep a hard copy of a directory they already make available to the public online. This hard copy has taken over several shelves in their office but is seldom consulted by the public.

The measure before us also clarifies some ambiguities in the copyright code. For example, in 1997, Congress amended the copyright code to clarify that copyright owners do not forfeit their rights in a work if they distributed it prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. However, while Congress made this fix for musical works distributed by phonograph, it neglected to specifically identify dramatic and literary works that were also distributed by phonograph. We make that correction in this bill before us. Finally, it corrects in this measure a number of technical errors, just dotting the I's and crossing the T's. I support the legislation. I commend the committee that worked on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, November 15th, I was unable to cast my votes on S. 3689, H. Res. 1713, and H. Con. Res. 328 and wish the record to reflect my intentions had I been able to vote. Last night I was meeting with a constituent group in Savoy, Illinois and was unable to travel to Washington, DC in time for the votes.

Had I been present on Rollcall No. 566 on suspending the rules and passing S. 3689, To clarify, improve, and correct the laws relating to copyrights, I would have voted Aye.

Had I been present on Rollcall No. 567 on suspending the rules and passing H. Res. 1713, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges desegregating a previously all-White public elementary school, I would have voted Aye.

Had I been present on Rollcall No. 568 on suspending the rules and passing H. Con. Res. 328, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the successful and substantial contributions of the amendments to the patent and trademark laws that were initially enacted in 1980 by Public Law 96-517 (commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act) on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its enactment, I would have voted Aye.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast votes on the following legislative measures on November 15, 2010. If I were present for rollcall votes, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of the following:

Roll 566, November 15, 2010: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: S. 3689, To clarify, improve, and correct the laws relating to copyrights.

Roll 567, November 15, 2010: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H. Res. 1713, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges desegregating a previously all-White public elementary school.

Roll 568, November 15, 2010: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree: H. Con. Res. 328, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the successful and substantial contributions of the amendments to the patent and trademark laws that were initially enacted in 1980 by Public Law 96-517 (commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act) on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its enactment.