The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which is also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act as well as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, extends the copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before this act, the law lasted for the life of an author plus fifty years or seventy-five years for corporations. Now, the copyright lasts for the life of an author plus seventy years of ninety-five years for corporations. In 1998, Disney representatives came to Washington looking for help in order to protect Mickey Mouse from going into the public domain in 2003.
This is the act in question for my argument. Disney wanted to protect their creation of Mickey Mouse and prohibit it from entering the public domain, so they called for the CTEA. Congress and President Clinton, who received lavish donations from Disney, signed the act in 1998. Whether or not the act should be upheld is the question I argue in my paper.

    These excerpts of the reasons why Congress extended the copyright term shows that these reasons are consistent with previous copyright extension acts that have been granted. One reason is that Congress recognized a number of public policy reasons for enacting such an act. It points out that Senator Orrin Hatch, pointed out that the reasons for passing the act “paralleled those that led Congress to adopt the life-plus-50 year copyright term in 1976”. These reasons include “harmonizing with the European Union and Strengthening the United States Balance of Payments”.  If United States copyright owners used works in Europe, it could only be protected if the US term was similar to that of the EU, which is the author’s life plus 70 years. Therefore this was a reason behind the CTEA. Other reasons include: to encourage investment in existing copyrighted works, fair provisions for authors’ descendants and encouragement for the creation of new works.
    The last reason given by Congress to pass CTEA holds important weight in my argument. Petitioners argue that the CTEA does not promote new creation, however, it was in the minds of Congress that the CTEA would indeed promote new creation. One creator in particular, Alan Menken testified that providing for one’s family is important during and after one’s life. If copyright would not help to provide for one’s family for an extended period of time, then a creator like Menken would have to stop creating and find employment elsewhere which would not promote creation of new works but actually inhibit it. This reason helps to argue why the CTEA should be supported rather than opposed. With regard to Mickey Mouse, protecting his creation can help Disney create new stories, images, and several ways of using Mickey Mouse.

Edward Samuels argues that the extension of copyright law is not a result of a scheme by corporations to cheat the public but rather a part of a system that the framers of the Constitution had in mind in order to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by “securing, for limited times, to authors, and inventors, and the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”.  Samuels identifies six categories of the public domain, which have all supported the expansion of copyright. Samuels writes that, “In all six areas, the public domain advocates were making arguments against the tide; they lamented the expansion of copyright but could hardly claim that the public domain analysis had in fact already worked its way into dominant copyright theory”. Samuels notes that protectionists of the act try and justify the copyright law based upon natural rights, moral rights and property rights, all of which public domain advocates argue in objection to heavily, however, Samuels argues that the natural rights and property rights are “firmly rooted in copyright history” and that it is recognized as the basis for copyright protection in civil law and outer countries outside of England and the US. Samuels goes on in his article to discuss the Eldred case and argues for the support of the case. He notes that the D.C Circuit Court concluded, “Copyrights are categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment”. The petitioners of copyright extension argue that the premise of CTEA violated the “limited Times” provision of the Copyright Clause and that Congress can only grant rights in the case that it will promote the creation of new works.  They argue that the extension act of 1998 is unconstitutional, but Samuels then asks if that is unconstitutional, are all other proceeding acts unconstitutional as well and therefore have no stopping point. Therefore, Samuels argues, the Supreme Court should not endorse any approach the petitioners present.

    This article is important to my topic because it discusses the rationale behind opposing or supporting the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the premise of my paper. Samuels outlines the arguments that advocates of the public domain may make including that of the restriction of creativity and he then argues why the advocates arguments do not hold and why the act should be upheld, an act that protects Mickey Mouse.

    The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 was passed in September by the House and Senate. The act became law when it was signed by the President in November 2008. The bill provides time for agreements and negotiations to be made concerning the royalty rates for webcasters. The act amends section 114(f)(5) of title 17 of the United States Code. It allows for settlements to be entered into an 11 year period starting on January 1, 2005. This would nullify the Copyright Royalty Board decision of 2007. The bill also modifies the settlement deadline between webcasters and the receiving agent of the royalties. The new deadline is February 15, 2009. Although this act has no immediate impact on the royalty ruling, it is a step closer to reaching a final decision. The act also allows settlements to go into effect more easily. If any group reaches a settlement with SoundExchange before the February deadline, they can submit it to the Copyright Royalty Board and it will become effective.
    The Webcaster Settlement Act is an important part of the research for my paper. It shows the progress being made regarding the royalty decision. The fact that this bill was signed by the President is evidence that the royalty ruling is a significant issue for the public. It demonstrates that there is some debate and doubt regarding the fairness of the royalties to the webcasters. This supports my argument that the Copyright Royalty Board’s decision is questionable and that there is a possibility for better models for determining royalty rates.

    On April 25, 2007, the House of Representatives presented the Internet Radio Equality Act with the purpose of nullifying the March 2, 2007, Copyright Royalty Board’s ruling on webcasting and royalty rates. The act proposed a new standard of determining royalties according to Section 801b of the Copyright Act. It also established a transition rule for commercial webcasters for 2006-2010, which offers a choice between paying $0.33 per hour of sound recording to a single listener or 7.5% of the annual revenues received by digital transmission of sound recordings. For noncommercial webcasters, the act proposed a payment of 150% of the royalty fee paid in 2004. The act also proposed a study to determine the competitiveness of the internet radio marketplace. Research is also being conducted to study the effects of the proposed rates on local programming, the diversity of programming, and the entry barriers into the internet radio market.
    The Internet Radio Equality Act is an important source for my paper. It demonstrates the efforts Pandora and other internet radio companies are making to fight the Copyright Royalty Board’s last ruling. It also argues that the standards for determining royalty rates should be the same as the ones proposed in the Copyright Act. This bill is important to argue the different sides of the royalty issue in my paper, since it offers the perspective of the internet radio companies. It also allows me to defend the point that there is a better model to determine the rates.

This is the actual case in which Viacom filed an amended complaint, seeking punitive damages in addition to the statuory damages originally requested in the March 13, 2007 case.

In reference to my project, this provides an update to the ongoing case of Viacom v. Youtube. The request to amend for additional damages was denied. It was ordered that punitive damages could not be recovered in accordance with the Copyright Act.

Viacom Inernational Inc.v. YouTube, Inc. No. 95-02103. Southern District of New York District Ct. of the US. 7 March 2008.

The rights to intellectual property and the revenue thereof can make or break an entrepreneurial business.  This book covers the gambit of trade secrets that tech-savvy entrepreneurs may need to protect intellectual property in the dynamic arena of copyright law, licensing, patenting, and trademark acquisition.  The book makes examples of the infringement issues faced by international business icons such as Microsoft and Amazon.com.

As it pertains to my project, the book also goes over the provisions for statutory versus actual damages in the 1976 Copyright Act (115).  These provisions are under review in the Viacom v. YouTube case.

Guide, Gilbert. The Entrepreneur's Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets & Licensing . New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 2004

Intellectual property is taking on new forms in the digital media market. Consumers are exploring their creative license through the use of multimedia service providers in unprecidented ways. This surge of consumer digital media use is also bringing to a head new conflicts between intellectual property rights Creative Commons, and Digital Rights Management. This book explores this phenomenon and the various ways in which major digital media service providers are being effected by this rapidly changing market environment. Overviews of the business performance, legal goings on, and multimedia services of such industry icons as Google, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sony BMG, Napster and more are discussed.

In reference to my project, the book looks at precident intellectual property cases and gives insights into how the concepts within the 1976 Copyright Act are applicable to the cases. The author also notes that Google has aside $200 million in escrow to deal with inevitable litigation, lists the various number of litigations involving YouTube, and notes that these cases will set important precedents for future review of copyright law as it pertains to Internet videos (253).

Rimmer, Matthew. Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007