Talk:Copyright Term Extension Act/Archive 1

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshund (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 September 2002 (UTC)

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 18:48, 21 February 2003 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwitty (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 August 2004

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.237.34 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 November 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Rlquall makes a good point. But the 95 year period was chosen simply to bring US law into conformity with the copyright term that had ALREADY been adopted in the rest of the copyright world. The US Supreme Court seemed to indicate that they would be DISinclined to grant further extensions past 95 years, echoing RLquall's points.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.74.123 (talk) 22 November 2009


 * 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)

Reference to January 1, 2019
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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.105.139 (talk) 29 December 2005

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.248.194 (talk) 18 January 2006

Removed image
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)

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)


 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.33.190 (talk) 18 January 2007

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. &mdash;  brighterorange  (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Public Law 105-298, TITLE I—COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION


 * PUBLIC LAW 105–304—OCT. 28, 1998 DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT


 * 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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.216.215 (talk) 15 August 2006

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albygil (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006

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)

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."



- Jtauber —Preceding undated comment added 29 October 2007

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)

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)

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)


 * The same could also be said of some of the arguments in the "Opposition" section. Some are more arguments against copyright itself. 66.112.100.226 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other countries
Was similar legislation enacted about the same time in other countries? (The article alludes to this, with "Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.") It would be good to include it. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing from this article is THE central issue surrounding the CTEA. All the other copyright countries in the world had already extended the term of Copyright. All this bill did was bring US law into conformity the standard already adopted elsewhere.

Background
The following section was removed from the article page to this page because it lacks citations and is directly contradicted by one of the sources used elsewhere in the article.

Prior to the 1976 copyright act, many copyrighted literary works, movies and fictional characters were soon to pass into the public domain due to their 56 year maximum copyright terms. Some of these copyrighted items remained quite profitable for their copyright owners, including several characters owned by the Walt Disney Company. With the passage of the 1976 copyright act, early animated short films featuring Mickey Mouse such as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy would not enter the public domain until 2000 at the earliest due to their new 75 year copyright terms. Mickey Mouse and other characters also have protection as trademarks. In several countries (e.g. in Russia, where the Berne convention was not applied retroactively) Mickey Mouse and all other copyrighted works created before 1970 are now regarded as being in the public domain. The source that contradicts nearly all the statements made above is ''Scott M. Martin (September 24, 2002). "The Mythology of the Public Domain: Exploring the Myths Behind Attacks on the Duration of Copyright Protection" (PDF). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (Loyola Law Review) 36 (1): 280. ISSN 1533-5860. http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue1/martin-original1.pdf. Retrieved 2007-11-17.''

Hartboy (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology
This article is mentioned in the Timeline of Scientology page, but I don't see a single mention of Scientology in the Background or Political Climate sections. Shouldn't that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.86.254 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Bono is prominently mentioned; that is sufficient.  His religious affiliation is not material.  It probably ought not to be mentioned on Timeline of Scientology; that seems like WP:SYNTH to me. TJRC (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Research notes
These are notes for me (and anyone else who wants them) to find more information on the debates leading to the bill.

Congressional Record Volume 144.

Congressional record debate on H.R.2589: Congressional Record: 1998: Mar 25, 1998. Digest D302, House Debate: H1456–83 Mr Doggett's Music Theft act Speech: H1457.

Congressional record debate on S.505: Congressional Record: 1998: Oct 7, 1998. Digest D1114, D1121 Senate pages: S11672–75  House pages H9946-54

More will be added as I have time. Jrincayc (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Congressional debate as combined pdfs for simplified downloading and reading (Congressional Record is public domain): Jrincayc (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://jjc.freeshell.org/H1456_83.pdf
 * http://jjc.freeshell.org/S11672_5.pdf
 * http://jjc.freeshell.org/H9946_54.pdf

Various names for portions of the bill in the 105th congress:

H.R. 2589, S. 505, H.R. 789 Jrincayc (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Collection of various CTEA opposition before it passed: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/

Statement by IP professors on CTEA for subcommittee: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/legmats/1998statement.html

Jrincayc (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.133.45 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 August 2004


 * 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)


 * Seriously, this article is a complete legal hodgepodge. Aren't there any attorneys contributing to Wikipedia who can clean this up? Mickey Mouse is clearly protected under trademark law. What would fall into the public domain would have been the Steamboat Will animations and the like. You couldn't have made a new Mickey cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.114.50.130 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "copyleft" movement dubbed the CTEA the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act" as a political device to try to defeat it by tying it, unfairly, to one of it's beneficiaries - The Walt Disney Company. As a consequence, this article focuses on Mickey Mouse as an example, raising the Trademark issue. Can I suggest that all references to Mickey Mouse and what would happen if MM went PD be deleted. A far better case study is Sherlock Holmes, which earliest books have entered the public domain and Sherlock Holmes is nobody's trademark. The British and American courts ruled that the character was not in the public domain because many of the books were still under copyright so new adaptations (such as the current Robert Downey, jr. movie) require permission of the Conan-Doyle estate. But the early books ARE PD and as a result the early BOOKS themselves can be freely printed and re-printed by anyone without permission or royalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.74.123 (talk) 22 November 2009

'''In response to the paragraph above, I would merely point out that using juvenile language like "the copyleft movement" does little beyond making you look like an idiot. As for the rest of your argument, I'd simply ask why you believe that one specific group of Corporate Suits deserves to make money off of Walt Disney's work any more than you or I do. No one currently working at Disney has any more right to Walt Disney's intellectual work than any random group of people picked out of a crowd on the street. It's this kind of devotion to Corporate Greed that led to the current economic disaster afflicting America.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 23 February 2010


 * Similarly, to illustrate the bizarre effect of the copyright lawes being different from territory to territory, recorded music goes PD in the UK after 54 years but is 95 years in Europe and the US. Thus the Elvis Presley secton ina British record store often exceeds that of the Beatles. Similarly, the old "Chess" catalog recordings are mostly PD in Europe. If allowed to be trans-shipped to the US, the US copyright holder would be out of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.74.123 (talk) 22 November 2009


 * The anonymous writer of the bold paragraph above seems to have the erroneous impression that the word "copyleft" is an attempt at sarcasm. On the contrary, it is a genuine movement, supported mainly by software creators who believe that the copyright law is far too restrictive, and wish to make their own creations open to public use, with minor limitations. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ for their position. WaxTadpole (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Image and "Mickey Mouse curve"
This article has long been illustrated with this image, which illustrates the the historical increased terms of copyright. Yesterday, replaced it with this one, with a superimposed "Mickey Mouse curve" to illustrate the historical closeness to expiration of the Mickey Mouse character, calling it a "new better image". I reverted; the first image better illustrates the subject of the article, which is the CTEA, not specifically the duration of Mickey Mouse protection. There's no real context for the image suggested by Piotrus, and it violates WP:UNDUE by elevating the Mickey Mouse issue to the central illustration of the article.

Piotrus has reinstated his image. I am now reverting per WP:BRD, and invite Piotrus to obtain a consensus for the change here on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the lead notes the alternative name. I think it is reasonable to have an image that explains this. I think it is hardly undue, just like mentioning the name "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" isn't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I was kind of hoping to hear some other voices besides yours and mine. Anyone?


 * The article is not about the "Mickey Mouse Curve." An illustration that shows the "Mickey Mouse Curve" does not illustrate the subject.  Yes, the statute has been derisively called "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" and variants thereof.  For what it's worth, I don't think that makes it lede-worthy, although it obviously belongs in the article itself, so that fact that the reference to the phrase "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"  is in the lede is not very persuasive.  But in any event, the proposed replacement graphic does not illustrate that.  And it's too POV to serve as the article illustration.  (For the record, the POV that the illustration pushes happens to coincide with my own; I opposed the Act when it was proposed, and still think it's a lousy law; but the fact that I share the POV in no way means that I support having it pushed in the article.) TJRC (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
This page has 20+ discussions going back 12 years. Does anyone object to setting up auto-archiving; say with a 1-year period, minimum 4 discussions retained? TJRC (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There being no objections, I'm turning on archiving. TJRC (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Difference between creation and publication
Near the top of the article it says "120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier." Can anyone explain the difference between creation and publication here?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Creation is the time the work is created. For example, if I write a short story in 2011 and put it in a drawer, it was created in 2011, but is not published.  If a couple years later, I pull it out and have it published in 2013, it has a 2013 publication date.  "Publication" essentially means distribution to the public; it can be a little more complicated than that (see the definition of "publication" in 17 USC § 101), but that's the gist of it). TJRC (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Disney-infinite-copyright.svg
I removed this image since it has no reliable source origin. It's just some individual's artwork that got uploaded to Commons. That's out of scope for this project. —Designate (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the error??
The article says in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product). But this contradicts the "will be in the public domain after 95 years", because 2019 - 1923 = 96, not 95. Georgia guy (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright Term Extension Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405125804/http://www.nmpa.org/nmpa/termfinal.html to http://www.nmpa.org/nmpa/termfinal.html
 * Added tag to http://www.okfn.org/fcd/wiki/PublicDomainElvis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links do not conform to Wikipedia policy—or do they?
For the last four years this cleanup tag has been displayed on the article: "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references."

I deleted all of the "Views" links (dif) because some are not reliable sources, and the rest should be cited in the body of the article if they provide important information to support statements in the article.

Another editor reverted my edit (diff).

From the external links guideline, "Some external links are welcome ... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Also see numbers 1 and 2 in WP:ELNO.

I am open to hearing why some or all of the links I deleted "... provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" and do not "... merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article."

I am also open to hearing why these web pages qualify as a reliable sources: https://everything2.com/?node=sonny+bono+copyright+extension+act

https://web.archive.org/web/20060405125804/http://www.nmpa.org/nmpa/termfinal.html

Thank you. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you saw this because I am interested in your perspective and will take it seriously. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My point in reverting the removal of the links was simply that a blanket removal of all of them&mdash;just because they were labelled&mdash;was unjustified without an attempt to evaluate them. There's no point in deleting them on the basis that they should be included in the article if they are not included in the article. It also bears mentioning that, immediately after that, I gave a cursory look-through and deleted ones outside the timeframe and duplicate viewpoints. I agree that those two links should also be removed. lethargilistic (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point. And thank you for the edits. I think we are basically on the same page. :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Names
It would be more convenient for readers to have the alternative names "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act", "Sonny Bono Act", or (derisively) "the Mickey Mouse Protection Act" right at the beginning of the article. Having them at the beginning of the article is a common practice for alternative names. iopensa (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)