Also referred to as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or disapprovingly as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by twenty years.  Previously, copyright lasted the life of the author plus fifty years, or seventy-five years for a work of corporate authorship; this act extended copyright to the life of the author plus seventy years and ninety-five years, respectively.  Basically, this act halted the advancement of the public domain.

Supported by big media companies like Disney (ironically, considering many of Disney's famous and timeless creations are borrowed ideas) and by self-concerned artists' widows like Mary Bono, the proposal for this legislation hit the floor with a bang.  At one point during debate Bono stated that Congress should consider the MPAA's Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day."  After supporting arguments such as the increasing length of human life expectancy and the negative global effects on the entertainment industry of differences between American and European copyright terms, Congress passed the legislation with a 105 to 298 vote.

However, as opponents of the act argue, this act is unconstitutional because such an act is not "necessary and proper" in accomplishing the Constitution's stated purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts."  In addition, a strong case can be made that under perpetual copyright, some works would not be created that would have been under limited-time copyright.  This is due to the fact that few creators of distantly derivatives works have the money and resources necessary to seek out the original work's copyright owner or to purchase a license, and often enough original owners might even refuse a license.  Thus it is made clear that a rich and constantly replenished public domain is necessary for the continuation of artistic creation.

Sometimes the issue is a little bit more complicated (although this is in no way simple) than obtaining permission from a copyright owner to use his or her work.  Sometimes, the copyright owner cannot be located, and a whole new slew of questions arise.  Does one use the work and take the risk of violating the law and possibly being sued, or does one refrain from using the best suited work and compensate with another less fitting work legally?  These questions and the reasons for why they are too often being asked are the topic of this essay.

Recent changes in copyright law, three in particular, are the main culprit.  They are automatic copyright protection, copyright renewals, and increased duration of copyright.  Under previous U.S. copyright law, authors had to register their material in order to receive copyright protection.  Today, anything that is created automatically is protected, and therefore many people don't bother registering their works, making it extremely difficult to track down the owner.  In addition, copyright today doesn't need to be renewed because the duration of current copyrights is already significantly and outrageously long.  This may make things easier for copyright owners who do not need to file paperwork, yet it makes things much more difficult for those trying to locate an owner because less paperwork is available to be searched through.

These issues prove to be daunting and intimidating to a person wanting to utilize something from a copyrighted work in their own creation.  An independent or documentary filmmaker, for example, might have to restrain from using something that he or she feels best enhances the work because of an inability to locate the copyright owner of the work wanting to be borrowed.  This is an obvious damper on creativity and significantly lowers the quality of future works.  If gaining permission to use a copyrighted work is hard enough, imagine gaining permission from a person that doesn't even exist.

This landmark case deals with the concepts of digital sampling and fair use.  Video Pipeline, a video promotion company, created trailers of home videos to be shown in stores.  These videos, intended to benefit the store's sales, were shown in the store and consisted of film clips acquired from the film distributors.  Video Pipeline continued this practice until 1997 when it considered the internet as a bigger, better, and more efficient way of distributing these previews.  It viewed its idea as a sort of sampling; much like a person can often sample a few pages of a book in a bookstore before buying it, they wanted to make short clips of movies available for preview before purchase.

After a few years of this distribution, Disney told Video Pipeline to stop.  However, Video Pipeline thought it was within their rights of fair use to distribute these clips and thus filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that these rights were in fact theirs.  Disney countersued for $100 million in damages.  The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Disney, and claimed that because the trailers were compiled of exact clips, they were derivative works illegal under the law.  In addition, the Plaintiff was ruled as violating performance and public display laws.  Last but definitely not least, the court ruled that the trailers did not fall under the argument of fair use for lack of adherence to the factors of fair use, which are as follows: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value for the copyrighted work.

This once again justifies the fear of filmmakers to borrow from copyrighted material, despite possible claims of fair use, because as is exemplified here, even a small borrowing of a film clip can cost millions.

Book pages 184 through 199.

In these two sections, Lessig argues that copyright laws constrain people from creating and innovating.  By mentioning and discussing the conceptions of all different types of artists, including painters, film makers, and musical artists, Lessig shows how the laws originally meant to protect these authors are now hurting them by constricting their abilities.  As Lessig states towards the end of this section of his book, "If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity."

The argument of fair use of course comes up in these sections, but Lessig puts it this time in a different and interesting way, claiming that "fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your right to create."  It's all about money and the market, and those who don't have the former can't hope to have their works distributed in the latter.  One simple infringement such as illegally downloading a song could cost a person millions of dollars in this country; however, a doctor, thanks to malpractice insurance, cannot be liable for more than $250,000, regardless of the damage to his patient.

Lessig also makes particular note of the internet and how it has increased the quantity of work out there and the speed and efficiency with which it can be shared.  Unfortunately, this should-be miracle is not utilized to its full potential because those creators and innovators that cannot afford to clear copyrights are too scared to make their work available on the internet for fear that it might be seen by someone who could sue them.  

This money driven, lawyer infested problem is stunting our culture and preventing our growth and expansion because no one wants to risk their life to put something creative and new out there.  And when the possible repercussions of taking such a risk include losing millions of dollars and consequently a livelihood, creativity and innovation suddenly begin to dwindle.

This source solidly supports my argument that copyright law is killing creativity rather than doing what it's meant to and protecting it.  It directly relates to my thesis and contributes to my claim.