Talk:Copyright Term Extension Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Bearian (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Copyright Term Extension Act article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] micky mouse movie in Russia

When the artical talks about the how you could make a micky mouse movie in Russia but not the united states because copyright might have expired in russia is untrue. While the copyright would have expired Micky mouse would still be protected as a trademark so no could make Micky Mouse movies with out infringing on Diseny's copyrigths. On the other hand the russians could copy old micky Mouse movies to thier hearts content Lotu 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the wholly inappropriate image (probably vandalism). PeterSP 14:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else just did it. PeterSP 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In China, there are plenty of Disney DVD's that Disney Corp (also known as Satan's Greedy Friends in my house) isn't happy with. Greedy corporations with money will defeat the constitution any day of the week. User:Anonymous

[edit] Removed: They believe that a treaty can give Congress powers...

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.

[edit] I'd like to remove

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

[edit] does not make much sense for a retroactive copyright extension

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.

[edit] without the act, Mickey Mouse would have entered the public domain"?

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)?

AFAIK, act proponents (including disney) seemed to feel dodgy as to whether certain bits of intellectual property were actually covered by trademark or copyright law, an d so took no chances. --Svartalf 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My understanding of the word "retroactive"

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)

Quick observation. This statement is not completely true:

"As a consequence of the act, under current law, no copyrighted works will enter into the public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019 at the earliest, when the copyright on works created in 1923 expires."

The owner of the copyright can put it into the public domain at any time. Perhaps something like "most copyrighted works ..." or "... at the earliest without the consent of the copyright holder".


[edit] 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)


Good question!

[edit] Copyright Term Extension Act merged with Digital Millennium Copyright Act ?

The two are the same laws, but in different articles. they should be merged. Both have value, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act covers the more legal portion, the Copyright Term Extension Act covers more of the background and controversy behind the law.Travb 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think these are the same law. I could be wrong. Where do you get that? Even if they were part of the same bill in some technical sense, I oppose a merge since people know it by these two different names, and there doesn't appear to be any overlap in the two articles. But if they are technically the same then that should be explained. —  brighterorange (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My mistake User:Brighterorange I was wrong and I will remove the two merge templates. My apologies. They are two bills passed on two different days, covering two different laws.Travb 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Whether because this is an online encyclopaedia with a public domain bias or whatever, I won't presume to make judgement. But the only external sources listed are government documents and 'views of the opposition'. How about views of the bill's proponents? This isn't a debate, this is an article. The same with the article itself, the time devoted to each side is unequal. This isn't NPOV

[edit] Mary Bono Quotation

Here's Congresswoman Mary Bono speech reference: Mary Bono, 1998. "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act," 144 Congressional Record H9946, at p. 9952 (7 October). Full text can be retrieved at: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r105:FLD001:H59946-H59954

[edit] Support/Opposition sections

Hi,

i don't really love "support/opposition" sections since it seems like a cheap way to resolve controversial articles without actually resolving them. However, User:Theshibboleth added fact templates to all the "opposition" statements, and not the "support" statements. I'm raising this question here, because I'm unclear whether this is a bit of one-sided editing on User:Theshibboleth's part, and/or whether I don't fully understand this reference standard. And because regardless of the one-sidedness, I definitely feel I don't understand the references standard. So I'm neither adding them to "support" nor removing them from "opposition", since I'm a little unclear on when "fact" templates are indicated and why they have been put, in this case, after every single sentence. Wouldn't a single reference to, say, some page indicating the anti-CTEA arguments at http://eldred.cc/ be sufficient? Why should there be a cite after every single statement? Why are the "opposition" a "weasel" and the "support" statements not? ... --LQ 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That was just the section I read and the section I edited because I noticed problems. Not bias, though I could see why you might think so. I think that if we're going to use one source for several paragraphs, we should probably rephrase it so that it's clear that we're just repeating http://eldred.cc/'s or some other source's statements against the CTEA. Theshibboleth 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well, this article needs a lot of work, not least of which is the references! Thanks for starting. --LQ 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Here is a citation for the opposition view "doesn't promote the progress of the arts": http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/supct/amici/ip-lawprofs.pdf

Perhaps somebody who knows wikipedia better can figure out how to add it.

There are more good citations here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/legal.html#amici

--Salsa man 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic analysis in opposition to Act by Milton Friedman, among others

There doesn't seem to be any mention in the article of the Senate submission by a group of well-known economists, including Milton Friedman, in opposition to the Act on the grounds that "Taken as a whole, it is highly unlikely that the economic benefits from copyright extension under the CTEA outweigh the additional costs. Moreover, in the case of term extension for existing works, the sizable increase in cost is not balanced to any significant degree by an improvement in incentives for creating new works."

[1]

- Jtauber

[edit] Citations 2

The arguements in the "Support/Opposition" section can be found in the "views of proponents/opponents" articles in the external links. Perhaps someone can connect them. Bobisbob (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Twain

"Mark Twain once noted that when a work enters the public domain, the publisher is still able to profit from its exploitations and the creators are the only ones who cease to benefit from the work."

This statement should be clarified and a quote provided, as the creator would be long dead before the work entered the public domain (and thus unable to personally benefit from its exploitation, of course). suriv (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't true back in Twain's day. Back then, a book's copyright routinely expired before its author. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overly long "Support" section

Many of the arguments in the "Support" section seem to be simply in favour of copyright itself, and not of the term extension specifically. (And certainly not about this actual length of term/extension.) Should the less relevant arguments be removed, or improved so that they more accurately relate to the Act? shreevatsa (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)