Testimony before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee
 March 9,1995

Dear Chairman Moorhead, Members of the Subcommitte on Intellectual Property, and distinguished members of Congress:

My name is Don Henley. I am a songwriter, music publisher, and recording artist. I appreciate the opportunity to express my support of H.R. 989, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995. You have heard many compelling arguments for the extension of the term of copyright protection for American intellectual property to match that of the European Union Directive of life plus 70 years. The members of the United States creative community have testified that this is a trade matter, and economic issue of vital importance to the American participation in the global marketplace. You've been told that our current laws create what is essentially a twenty-year free ride to the European Union--they can use or abuse our works for free, while we have to pay for the use of theirs. You've also heard about the questionable real value to the people of public domain material. It is all this, but it is very much more. On a daily basis, I wear many hats. I care passionately about the preservation of our dwindling wilderness areas, and I have devoted a great portion of my life and my life's work to make sure that a respect for the land and the protection of our environment is a part of the legacy we leave our children. We have found that in order to foster this respect and protection, it has been necessary to enact laws. Many of you are acquainted with me in this role.

I am, however, first and foremost, an artisan, except my tools are words and melodies instead of brushes and canvas. I cut, shape, refine, and position each word and each note until I have crafted a song that I believe is true. My songs are an expression of who I am and what I stand for, and the laws which govern the results of my endeavors demand that people respect my work. The copyright law provides me with the right to protect my work from those who would otherwise compromise its integrity, who would exploit, abuse, and mutilate my art. I do not allow my songs to be used in conjunction with advertising commercials, and I am extremely selective about other ancillary uses of my music in films and other projects. The law gives me this right, but only for a limited time. No one would question my right to benefit from its value or to ensure that my heirs benefit from its value. And if I were to design and build a house, instead of a song, I could own this house and would have the right to protect it throughout my lifetime. I would be able to pass this along to my children, and it would be theirs to pass to their children and so forth.

But I don't make houses or other tangible property. I just make songs, and they can only belong to me and my family for a limited time. I can't erect a fence around my kind of property to defend against trespassers. As a creator of intellectual property, I must rely on the law for protections, both economic and artistic.

As much as I believe that we are inextricably connected to one another in our individual and collective impact on the global environment, I also believe ours has become a global economy, and American creators in other countries. We cannot chastise other countries which do not provide as high a level of protection as provided under American law, when American law does not provide as high a level of protection as laws in other western countries, such as the European Community.

I urge you to pass H.R. 989, to extend the maximum protection to American intellectual property, to encourage the creative minds in America to continue to produce the songs, the plays, the books, the films, the photographs, the designs, the software--the art--that inspires the world.

Thank you.