Talk:Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

I removed the following section from the paragraph on the SBCTE proponents' arguments, because it was unsupported and out of place:

They believe that a treaty can give Congress powers not enumerated in the Constitution.

---

I'd like to remove or reword the As of 2002 reference, or update it to 2003, but I'm not familiar enough with the current state of the fight against CTEA to do it proper justice. Anyone? Catherine

---

It would be nice to mention that the "encourages new works to be written" does not make much sense for a retroactive copyright extension...an author who has been dead for 30 years is not going to be writing a lot of new works even if the copyrights last longer.

---

Is it really correct to say that "without the act, Mickey Mouse would have entered the public domain"? Surely Mickey Mouse is protected by trademark law, and trademarks only expire if they are not used, so although certain films would have entered the public domain, the characters would not have (e.g. it would still have been illegal for Disney's competitors to use Steamboat Willie in advertising)?

---

My understanding of the word "retroactive" in a copyright context is if a new law extends the copyrights of works already in existance (as opposed to future works), rather than if it restores copyright on a previously public domain work. --Imran 11:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The statement "Unlike European Union copyright extension legislation, the Sonny Bono Act was not retroactive. It did not revive copyrights that had already expired." is incorrect and should be changed.

The US extension was retroactive in the sense that it postponed the previously set dates when material was scheduled to enter the public domain. The EU extension was also retroactive in the sense that it even revoked the public domain status of some works. Unless anyone objects, I will go ahead and change the text to "Unlike European Union copyright extension legislation, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired." --ABostrom 22:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, if there was nothing that was public domain in Europe that was brought back under copyright then the convention was in no way "retroactive" for the purposes of this discussion and that passage should be removed. Secondly, did any of the opponents of passage/proponents of repeal really argue the Tenth Amendment? If so, they were arguing against pretty settled law, decided about eight decades before in Missouri v. Holland (although the argument can certainly be made that those who argued for Brown in Brown v. Board of Education were likewise arguing against clearly settled law, so sometimes it pays, but is a lot more apt to in a human rights case than it is in an intellectual property case).

Rlquall 18:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further review – if one is to belive the points in some of the links to opponents' material, there are things that had lapsed into public domain in Europe that are now again under copyright (a dangerous doctrine IMO). Of course, the estates of authors whose works have been elevated to the status of "literature" are loving that.

Somewhere, maybe just here on the talk page (so if that is sufficient, maybe this will do) it should be noted that Mark Twain faced a problem with copyright piracy pretty much throughout his life. He was a long-time proponent of "life plus fifty", stating before Congress in the early 1900's when this issue was being examined (unsurprisingly, nothing beyond covering the then-new phonograph record was really changed at the time), that a man and his children should be able to live off of the fruits and merits of his works and that his grandchildren should be allowed to fend for themselves, showing that although he was in favor of enhancements beyond the twenty-eight years and one renewal then allowed that he would not likely agree with Bono on "eternity less one day". Rlquall 19:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A final comment (any more and I'd need to start my own blog). There are two precedents in the law for what a "limited period" as proposed to "perpetuity" is. One is from the common law and states that leases must be for a limited period and cannot be perpetual. Hence, the 99 year lease became the longest enforceable lease – a century or more is in essence perpetual and hence impermissible. U.S. Census records are secret for 72 years and then become public to help historians, geneological researchers, and the like. (Meaning that the records of the 1930 census became public in 2002 and those of the 1940 will do so in 2012.) This would imply that a reasonable expectation of privacy has an identifiable end. (The primary motivation at the time that the law passed was likely the fear of identifying someone as "illegitimate"; one supposes the original law's authors assumed that the revelation of illegitimacty in the life of a person who had always been deemed reputable in their 70s would do no life-changing harm to them.) So "forever", more or less, is either more than 72 years or more than 99. I think the fact that 95 is less than 99 is why this period was chosen and that Mickey Mouse will really become "p.d." in 2023, which I surely hope to see. It is certainly hard to justify further extensions on the basis of more motivation for creators. Who is really motivated to create on the basis that one's great-great grandchildren will benefit, let alone one's great-great-great-great grandchildren which one can hardly conceive of, let alone be concerned much for their welfare and especially their finances?

Rlquall 19:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like the explanation above from User:Abostrom. Please put that in there.

Rlquall 18:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unclear

Should this sentence from Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act:

After the act, copyrights lasted the life of the author, plus seventy years in the case of individual works, or 75 to 95 years in the case of works of corporate authorship and works first published before 1978 January 1.

be understood as:

After the act, copyrights lasted the life of the author, plus seventy years in the case of individual works, or 75 to 95 years after publication in the case of works of corporate authorship and works first published before 1978 January 1.

In other words are there two kinds of works, those authored by a person, and those made by a corporation or pseudonymously? Does 70 (not 75) years apply to a work authored by someone on 1977, who dies the same year? -Wikibob | Talk 20:04, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)