Patrick Leahy: “In March, the House passed H.R. 672. On April 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported our companion bill, S. 506.…”

“In March, the House passed H.R. 672. On April 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported our companion bill, S. 506. The only substantive difference between the two bills is that S. 506 provides that the reasonable costs of a ratemaking proceeding conducted by a copyright arbitration royalty panel will be split 50-50 between the parties who would receive royalties from the royalty rate adopted in the proceeding and the parties who would pay the royalty rate so adopted. H.R. 672 provides that the costs shall be borne by the parties in direct proportion to their share of the distribution. The Copyright Office believes that the House version provides the copyright arbitration royalty panels with greater flexibility in certain circumstances. It is for this reason that the Senate is taking up the House version of the bill. Last year, when the House considered and passed a similar bill, H.R. 1861, it included another section clarifying that the distribution of phonorecords prior to 1978 did not constitute action divesting copyright for the musical composition.”