US House of Rep passes compulsory licensing of broadcast TV signals

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

- As the White House pressures Africa and Thailand
          on compulsory licensing of essential medicines, the
          US House of Representatives approved by a vote of 
          422 to 1 legislation for the compulsory licensing of 
          broadcast television programs. 

        - Representative Marion Berry (D-Ark) comments on 
          both issues.


Washington - April 28, 1999. Yesterday the U.S. House of 
Representatives voted 422 to 1 to extend a compulsory license 
for the rebroadcast of network television programing.  The 
legislation (HR 1554)  "extends for five years (through 
Dec. 31, 2004) the compulsory license for satellite carriers 
to retransmit superstations and distant signals"  and reduces 
the fees for the compulsory license from 27 cents-per-month per
to 19 cents-per-month per subscriber.

This legislation has zipped through the US Congress following
a temporary blackout of popular television shows such as sitcom
Alley McBeal,  that prompted satellite television viewers to 
press the US Congress for changes in the law to make broadcasts
more widely available to satellite television subscribers.

This comes right at the time that the US government's trade and 
foreign policy establishment is pressing less developed
countries to abandon compulsory licensing on essential medicines.
The following comments by Representative Marion Berry (D-ARK)
discusses the two issues as a contrast in what we do and what
we want others to do.      

      Jamie Love <love@cptech.org>



April 27, 1999
Congressional Record - Ex
[Page E782]

COMPULSORY LICENSING IS NOT AN ASSAULT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MARION BERRY

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 27, 1999

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that today, by an overwhelming 
majority of 422 to 1, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1554, 
the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1999, which I supported. This 
legislation ensures that many of my constituents will continue to 
receive television network programing. The bill extends for five years 
compulsory licenses, which require superstations and distant broadcast 
stations to allow their signal to be retransmitted by satellite 
carriers. In order to promote competition, the bill sets specific 
prices at which the intellectual property owners, or broadcasters, will 
be paid for having their signal rebroadcasted.

  It is ironic that even as we vote to allow compulsory licensing 
today, we are interfering in another country's attempt to address a 
public health crisis through giving consumers access to international 
markets and through the use of compulsory licensing. It is estimated 
3.2 million South Africans are HIV positive, including 45 percent of 
its military. One in five South African pregnant women test positive 
for HIV. Access to affordable medicine is also a critical issue for the 
elderly and others suffering from chronic diseases and medical 
conditions. Prescription drugs are not currently an option for many 
patients in South Africa, where the drugs often cost more than they do 
in the United States. The 1997 per capita income in South Africa was 
estimated to be only $6,200 annually.

  To address the problem, President Mandela and the South African 
Government enacted a law in 1997 to reform the country's prescription 
drug marketplace. The law amends the South African Medicines Act to 
allow prescription drugs to be purchased in the international 
marketplace where prices are lower. It would also allow compulsory 
licensing in some cases. Regulations implementing the law have not been 
implemented while the law is being constitutionally challenged in South 
African courts by drug makers in their country.

  However, the pharmaceutical industry has persuaded the United States 
government to work to have the South African law repealed. In February, 
the United States Department of State released a report titled, U.S. 
Government Efforts to Negotiate the Repeal, Termination or Withdrawal 
of Article 15(c) of the South African Medicines and Related Substances 
Act of 1965.

  While special interest groups have tried to convince members of 
Congress and the administration that implementation of the South 
African Medicines Act would cause violations of international 
intellectual property rights agreements, I have seen no evidence that 
such violations are likely to occur. Compulsory licensing is not an 
assault on intellectual property rights. Instead, it is part of the 
copyright and patent systems which enable the interest of the public to 
be served. Compulsory licensing is permitted under Article 31 of the 
WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
(TRIPS). In fact, French law authorizes compulsory licensing when 
medicines are ``only available to the public in insufficient quantity 
or quality or at abnormally high prices.''

  Today, the House of Representatives wisely exercised its power to 
continue the use of compulsory licensing in the broadcast industry to 
allow consumers to have access to broadcast signals, that in many 
instances they would otherwise be unable to receive. Certainly, the 
United States government should recognize the need of a government to 
allow

[[Page E783]]

its citizens to have access to needed medicine in order to address a 
public health crisis and should not interfere with the situation in 
South Africa.





-- 
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
I can be reached at love@cptech.org, by telephone 202.387.8030,
by fax at 202.234.5176. CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org