We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
521
Subsection (d1f2'). Amendment of Superseded Section 304(a^
Although the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 amended Section 304(a), it left the preexisting text effective for copyrights secured before January 1, 1964. Hence the bill amends that text to extend renewal tenns from 47 to 67 years.
Subsections (d)(3)(A) and (B). Extension of Terms for "Old Law* Works
The bill amends the text of Section 304(a) as amended by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, to extend the renewal terms of applicable "old law" works by 20 years, from 47 to 67 years. (This amended Section 304(a) is applicable to 'old law' works for which copyright was first secured between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977.) The bill also amends Section 304(b), which applies to works which were renewed in the year between enactment of the 1976 Act and its effective date, to grant a total term of copyright of 95 years.
ARGUMENTS
Proponents of the bill will argue that one of the major reasons Congress originally adopted the life-plus-SO-years provision was to provide copyright protection not only to the creator (eg., the writer, musician, artist, or computer programmer), but to his or her children and grandchildren — in other words, for three generations. With people living longer today, an extension of the term by 20 years would roughly correspond to the increase in longevity of human life.
Proponents will also argue that Congress rightly felt it was important in 1976 to extend the copyright term to match the terms guaranteed by other major trading nations in order to grant at least equal protection to American copyright owners and, consequently, American intellectual property exports. If the American copyright term is not extended, American "creator" copyright owners will have 20 years less protection than European copyright owners which would mean 20 years during which Europeans will not be paying Americans for our copyrighted products. This would taint one of the "bright spots" in our balance of trade picture, the export of intellectual property.
Proponents will argue that harmonization is important for trade negotiations. In bilateral and multilateral negotiations, shortcomings in our own copyright protection are often used against us when we are negotiating for stronger protection of U.S. copyright owners abroad.
Proponents will further argue that many works become less available when they fall into the public domain (at least in a form that resembles the original) because few companies are willing to invest the capital necessary to reproduce and distribute non-copyrighted material.
Opponents of H.R. 989 will argue that a term extension is contrary to the purpose of copyright outlined in the Constitution because it does not equally balance the incentive to create original works with access through the public domain. Many works which are about to fall into