This letter written on behalf of the Society of American Archivists expresses one group’s opposition to the CTEA and the need to oppose such a passing of an act. They argue that the law disrupts the balance between public and private interests and will have a negative impact on the public’s use of unpublished materials for teaching, scholarship and research. The point of the Society is to make things available to the public and they believe that such an extension will inhibit their ability to make things available and useable to the public. Maher on behalf of the society argues that there should be a vigorous public domain and protections for the rights of holders of intellectual property as well. They believe that too short of a copyright may discourage new works but too long of a period may limit the creation of new discoveries and Congress must maintain a balance between the interests of authors and the rights of the public. Maher argues that, “no extension of copyright term should be contemplated until there are available solid analysis of the likely impact of such an extension on the creation of new knowledge”. He goes on to say that the Society is troubles by the effect the extension may have on the use of unpublished material that is found in archives and that courts have continues to restrict the application of fair use, which applies, to archives. The final argument Maher makes is that the Society believes that only a few individuals of heirs and corporations would benefit from the extension of such an extension.
    This letter is important because it takes the perspective of an organization that finds the passing of the CTEA to be unbeneficial and detrimental to their work. It is important to my paper because it takes a different perspective, a more personal perspective in a sense. The argument they make is not just for the public domain but also rather for the balance which is something that has not been argued for in other articles.

Peter Yu writes that the Supreme Court, in its decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft cited the need to harmonize the United States copyright law with that if the European Union, which is a reason that the CTEA passed in the first place. He writes that Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent in the case, writes about how the opposite is true even with the passing of the CTEA. Breyer points out that the US and the EU have different copyright terms for a large number of works including, “works made for hire, pre 1978 works and anonymous and pseudonymous works”.  Yu examines sound recordings and writes that in the US sound recordings are deemed works made for hire and are therefore protected for 95 years. However, in the EU, recordings are only protected for 50 years. In the US, if the recording is protected by copyright then it does not matter if it is in the public domain elsewhere and if the recoding is imported to the US, then it is considered piracy. Yu points out that harmonization has been held back due to the background of copyright law in different countries. He writes that European copyright law developed from an authors’ right (droit d’auteur) tradition, which includes personal and economic rights while US copyright law emerged from a utilitarian tradition which emphasizes economic rights over personal rights. The US and Europe also differ on moral rights as Yu writes. In Europe, an author, not a copyright holder, has a right to claim authorship and can prevent the use of the name as the author of any work not created by the author. The author also has the right to prevent any damage to his or her reputation. This protection as Yu notes is not available in the US except in instances of visual arts. Yu writes that the Court in Eldred embraced the idea and need to harmonize US copyright law with other countries’ copyright law but it deferred to Congress and Congress has a strong interest in intellectual property, causing it to grant stronger protection than other countries.
    This article that comes from a book that Yu is planning on publishing, helps oppose the reasons behind why Congress passed the CTEA. This is crucial to my argument because it questions the Congress and their desires to pass the CTEA. This article opposes a different argument that Congress made in support of harmonization, which is an argument that I make in my paper in support of the CTEA.

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.