著作權年限延長法案

立法背景

依據1886年的國際伯爾尼保護文學和藝術作品公約（簡稱伯恩公約），簽署公約的國家被要求提供對作者至少死後加上五十年的著作權保護。除此之外，簽署國也可以提供比死後五十年更長的保護年限。直到1989年3月1日美國正式批准伯恩公約之後，此公約才在美國具約束力。但是在此之前，美國已經於1976年版的著作權法案提供了伯恩公約所規範的著作權最短所需年限。
在美國加入了伯恩公約之後，部分著作權的既得利益者成功地遊說美國國會再一次延長著作權的年限，讓美國的保護年限能夠跟歐洲的規範相同。自從1993年統一著作權保護期間指令生效後，歐洲聯盟的成員國便將著作權保護的年限延長至作者死後加上七十年。
為了紀念去世的國會議員桑尼·波諾，上述延長著作權年限的法案便以他的姓名為法案名稱。桑尼·波諾在法案正式成為通過的九個月前過世；他之前曾經是一個類似法案的十二名贊助者之一。
眾議院的議員對於飯店、酒吧的老闆抱持同情，這些企業主對於美國作曲家、作家、和發行商協會（ASCAP）以及BMI公司的授權方式感到憤恨不平，這差點讓法案無法通過。最後，桑尼·波諾法案被修改，納入1998年音樂著作公平授權法案，免除小型單位需要申請公共表演授權才能播放音樂的限制。
美國國會兩院都以口頭表決通過此法案，為美國聯邦公法第105-298法案柯林頓總統在1998年10月27日簽署了桑尼·波諾著作權年限延長法案。

參議院報告 104-315

參議院報告提供了為何要通過著作權延長法律的原因。原本這是在1995年的著作權年限延長法案的提案背景中所撰寫。
本法案的目的是確保美國的創作在國外有得到足夠的著作權保護，並且透過利用有著作權的創作來持續享有經濟面上健全的貿易利得。為達成上述目標，本法案透過將美國現行的著作權年限延展21年。這樣的延展讓美國的著作權法規跟歐洲聯盟的年限達到一致，能夠提供明顯的經濟效益，確保美國的創作者能夠完全地利用其創作而享有合理的補償。此外，透過刺激新的創作、提供更多經濟誘因給保存既存的作品，這樣的延展將能夠增進公眾領域長期下來的容量、活力、與存取便利性。
報告的作者們相信延展著作權的保護年限，將能夠幫助美國在國外保護他們的創作更多的保護，而因為提供創作者更多獨享的權益也能提供更多誘因來數位化與保存其作品。此報告也納入了赫伯·柯爾與漢克·布朗兩位參議員的非主流意見，他們認為延長年限會是藉由剝奪大眾使用作品而使現有著作權擁有者的一筆意外之財。

支持方

自1990年始，華特迪士尼公司就在倡議著作權年限的延長。這個的立法延後了最早的幾部米老鼠電影進入公眾領域的年限，這也讓此法案有了「米老鼠保護法案」的謔稱。
除了迪士尼之外，加州的國會議員瑪莉·波諾（桑尼·波諾之妻，也是桑尼過世後的議員職務繼任者），還有作曲家喬治·格什溫著作權的擁有者也支持這個法案。瑪莉·波諾曾在美國眾議院的公開演講說道：
實際上，桑尼是想要著作權保護的年限延長到永遠。我被工作人員告知這樣的變更會違反憲法⋯⋯你們可能知道，也有（當時為美國電影協會（MPAA）主席的）捷克·維蘭提之「永久減一天的年限延長」提案。也許委員會可以在下一屆的國會來檢視這個點子。
其他支持贊成波諾法案的遊說團體還有華納媒體、環球影業、維亞康姆、主流的職業運動聯盟（美國橄欖球聯盟（NFL）、NBA、國家曲棍球聯盟（NHL）、大聯盟（MLB））、以及遇害歌手莎麗娜的家人。
波諾法案的擁護者指出，自從國會通過原本1790年的著作權法案後，人類的預期壽命已經大幅的增長，故修法是必要的。，美國和歐洲的著作權年限的差異將會對演藝界的國際運作起負面的影響，他們也認為有些創作是需要更長期的著作權專享的情形下才會有人願意進行，現行的年限並不足。他們也聲稱對美國而言有著作權的作品之利潤是佔美國很重要的收入，像是VHS、DVD、有線電視、衛星電視也已經增進了電影和電視劇的價值與商業生命。

已隱藏部分未翻譯部分，歡迎參與翻譯。
Proponents contend that Congress has the power to pass whatever copyright term it wants because the language "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the United States Constitution is not a substantive limitation on the powers of Congress, leaving the sole restriction that copyrights must only last for "limited times." However, in what respect the granted time must be limited has never been determined, thus arguably even an absurdly long, yet finite, duration would still be a valid limited time according to the letter of the Constitution as long as Congress was ostensibly setting this limit to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This was one of the arguments that prevailed in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CTEA. It is also pointed out by proponents that the extension did not prevent all works from going in the public domain. They note that the 1976 Copyright Act established that unpublished works created before 1978 would still begin entering the public domain January 1, 2003 (Known author: life of the author plus 70 years; anonymous/pseudoanonymous/unknown author/works-for-hire: 120 years from creation), and that the provision remained unaffected by the 1998 extension. They also claim that Congress has actually increased the scope of the public domain since, for the first time, unpublished works will enter the public domain.
Proponents believe that copyright encourages progress in the arts. With an extension of copyright, future artists have to create something original, rather than reuse old work, however, had the act been in place in the 1960s, it is unlikely that Andy Warhol would have been able to sell or even exhibit any of his work, since it all incorporated previously copyrighted material. Proponents contend that it is more important to encourage all creators to make new works instead of just copyright holders.
Proponents say that copyright better preserves intellectual property like movies, music and television shows. One example given is the case of the classic film It's a Wonderful Life. Before Republic Pictures and Spelling Entertainment (who owned the motion picture rights to the short story and the music even after the film itself became public domain) began to assert their rights to the film, various local TV stations and cable networks broadcast the film endlessly. As New York Times reporter Bill Carter put it: "the film's currency was being devalued."
Many different versions of the film were made and most if not all were in horrible condition. After underlying rights to the film were enforced, it was given a high quality restoration that was hailed by critics. In addition, proponents note that once a work falls into the public domain there is no guarantee that the work will be more widely available or cheaper. Suggesting that quality copies of public domain works are not widely available, they argue that one reason for a lack of availability may be due to publishers' reluctance to publish a work that is in the public domain for fear that they will not be able to recoup their investment or earn enough profit.
Proponents reject the idea that only works in the public domain can provide artistic inspiration. They note that opponents fail to take into account that copyright applies only to expressions of ideas and not the ideas themselves. Thus artists are free to get ideas from copyrighted works as long as they do not infringe. Borrowing ideas and such are common in film, TV and music even with copyrighted works (see scènes à faire, idea-expression divide and stock character). Works such as parody benefit from fair use.
Proponents also question the idea that extended copyright is "corporate welfare." They state that many opponents also have a stake in the case, claiming that those arguing against copyright term extension are mostly businesses that depend on distributing films and videos that have lost their copyright.
One argument against the CTEA is focused on the First Amendment. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, however, the court explained how a copyright "respects and adequately safeguards the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." In following this approach, courts have held that copyrights are "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."

反對方

Critics of the CTEA argue that it was never the original intention for copyright protection to be extended in the United States. Attorney Jenny L. Dixon mentions that "the United States has always viewed copyright primarily as a vehicle for achieving social benefit based on the belief that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare;" however, "the U.S. does not consider copyright as a 'natural right.'" Dixon continues that with increased extensions on copyright protections, authors receive the benefits, while the public have more difficulty accessing these works, weakening public domain. One such extension Dixon mentions is the protection of a copyrighted work for the author's life followed by two generations, which opponents argue that there is no legislation nor intention for this copyright protection. "These constitutionally-grounded arguments 'for limitations on proprietary rights' are being rejected time and time again."
Dennis S. Karjala, a law professor, led an effort to try to prevent the CTEA from being passed.  He testified before the Committees on the Judiciary arguing "that extending the term of copyright protection would impose substantial costs on the United States general public without supplying any public benefit. The extension bills represent a fundamental departure from the United States philosophy that intellectual property legislation serve a public purpose."
An editorial in The New York Times argued against the copyright extension on February 21, 1998.  The article stated "When Senator Hatch laments that George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue will soon 'fall into the public domain,' he makes the public domain sound like a dark abyss where songs go, never to be heard again. In fact, when a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency."
Opponents of the Bono Act consider the legislation to be corporate welfare and have tried (but failed) to have it declared unconstitutional, claiming that such an act is not "necessary and proper" to accomplishing the Constitution's stated purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". They argue that most works bring most of the profits during the first few years and are pushed off the market by the publishers thereafter. Thus there is little economic incentive in extending the terms of copyrights except for the few owners of franchises that are wildly successful, such as Disney. They also point out that the Tenth Amendment can be construed as placing limits on the powers that Congress can gain from a treaty. More directly, they see two successive terms of approximately 20 years each (the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Bono Act) as the beginning of a "slippery slope" toward a perpetual copyright term that nullifies the intended effect and violates the spirit of the "for limited times" language of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8.
Some opponents have questioned the proponents' life expectancy argument, making the comparison between the growth of copyright terms and the term of patents in relation to the growth of life expectancies. Life expectancies have risen from about 35 years in 1800  to 77.6 years in 2002. While copyright terms have increased threefold, from only 28 years total (under the Copyright Act of 1790), life expectancies have roughly doubled. Moreover, life expectancy statistics are skewed due to historically high infant mortality rates. Correcting for infant mortality, life expectancy has only increased by fifteen years between 1850 and 2000.
In addition, copyright terms have increased significantly since the 1790 act, but patent terms have not been extended in parallel, with 20-year terms of protection remaining the (presumably under the laws) adequate compensation for innovation in a technical field. 
Seventeen prominent economists, including Kenneth Arrow, Ronald Coase, and Milton Friedman, submitted an amicus brief opposing the bill when it was challenged in court. They argued that the discounted present value of the extension was only a 1% increase for newly created works, while the increase in transaction costs created by extending the terms of old works would be very large and without any marginal benefit. According to Lawrence Lessig, when asked to sign the brief, Friedman had originally insisted that "the word 'no-brainer' [appear] in it somewhere," but still agreed to sign it even though his condition was not met.
Another argument against the CTEA is focused on the First Amendment "because of the prospective and retrospective application of the CTEA." The plaintiffs in Eldred v. Reno believed that "the CTEA failed to sustain the intermediate level of scrutiny test afforded by the First Amendment because the government did not have an 'important' interest to justify withholding speech."
Opponents also argue that the Act encourages "offshore production." For example, derivative works could be created outside the United States in areas where copyright would have expired, and that US law would prohibit these works to US residents. For example, a movie of Mickey Mouse playing with a computer could be legally created in Russia, but the movie would be refused admission for importation by US Customs because of copyright, resulting in a deprivation to American children. Similarly, the first Winnie-the-Pooh book was published in 1926 and would have been public domain in 2001.
Opponents identify another possible harm from copyright extension: loss of productive value of private collections of copyrighted works. A person who collected copyrighted works that would soon "go out of copyright," intending to re-release them on copyright expiration, lost the use of his capital expenditures for an additional 20 years when the Bono Act passed. This is part of the underlying argument in Eldred v. Ashcroft. The Bono Act is thus perceived to add an instability to commerce and investment, areas which have a better legal theoretical basis than intellectual property, whose theory is of quite recent development and is often criticized as being a corporate chimera. Conceivably, if one had made such an investment and then produced a derivative work (or perhaps even re-released the work in ipse), he could counter a suit made by the copyright holder by declaring that Congress had unconstitutionally made, ex post facto, a restriction on the previously unrestricted.
Howard Besser questioned the proponents' argument that "new works would not be created", which implies that the goal of copyright is to make the creation of new works possible. However, the Framers of the United States Constitution evidently thought that unnecessary, instead restricting the goal of copyright to merely "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". In fact, some works created under time-limited copyright would not be created under perpetual copyright because the creator of a distantly derivative work does not have the money and resources to find the owner of copyright in the original work and purchase a license, or the individual or privately held owner of copyright in the original work might refuse to license a use at any price (though a refusal to license may trigger a fair use safety valve). Thus they argue that a rich, continually replenished, public domain is necessary for continued artistic creation.

1998年3月25日的眾議院辯論

The House debated the Copyright Term Extension Act (House Resolution 390) on March 25, 1998.  The term extension was almost completely supported, with only the mild criticism by Jim Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin) of "H.R. 2589 provides a very generous windfall to the entertainment industry by extending the term of copyright for an additional 20 years."  He suggested that it could be balanced by adding provisions from the Fairness in Music Licensing Act (H.R. 789).  Lloyd Doggett (Texas) called the 'Fairness in Music Licensing Act' the 'Music Theft Act' and claimed that it was a mechanism to "steal the intellectual property of thousands of small businesspeople who are song writers in this land."  The majority of subsequent debate was over Sensenbrenner's House Amendment 532  to the CTEA. This amendment was over details of allowing music from radio and television broadcasts in small businesses to be played without licensing fees.  An amendment to Sensenbrenner's amendment was proposed by Bill McCollum,.  The key differences between Sensenbrenner's proposal and McCollum's amendment were 1) local arbitration versus court lawsuits in rate disagreements, 2) all retail businesses versus only restaurants and bars, 3) 3500 square feet of general public area versus 3,500平方英尺（330平方公尺） of gross area, 4) which music licensing societies it applied to (all versus ASCAP and BMI), and 5) freedom from vicarious liability for landlords and others leasing space versus no such provision.  After debate (and the first verse of American Pie) the McCollum Amendment was rejected in by 259 to 150 and the Sensenbrenner amendment was passed by 297 to 112.  The Copyright Term Extension Act H.R. 2589 was passed.
The term extension was supported for two key reasons.  First, "copyright industries give us [(the United States)] one of our most significant trade surpluses."  Second, the recently enacted legislation in the European Union had extended copyright there for 20 years, and so EU works would be protected for 20 years longer than US works if the US did not enact similar term extensions.  Howard Coble also stated that it was good for consumers since "When works are protected by copyright, they attract investors who can exploit the work for profit."  The term extension portion was supported by Songwriters Guild of America, National Academy of Songwriters, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, the Information Technology Association of America and others.

法理違憲

Publishers and librarians, among others, brought a lawsuit, Eldred v. Ashcroft, to obtain an injunction on enforcement of the act. Oral arguments were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 9, 2002. On January 15, 2003 the court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7–2 decision.
In 2003, the plaintiffs in the Eldred case began to shift their effort toward the U.S. Congress in support of a bill called the Public Domain Enhancement Act that would make the provisions of the Bono Act apply only to copyrights that had been registered with the Library of Congress.

實務測試

In 2012, law professors Christopher Buccafusco and Paul J. Heald performed tests of three key justifications of copyright extension, namely: that public domain works will be underutilized and less available, will be oversaturated by poor quality copies, and poor quality derivative works will harm the reputation of the original works. They compared works from the two decades surrounding 1923 made available as audiobooks. They found that copyrighted works were available at a significantly lower rate than public domain ones, found no evidence of overexploitation driving down the price of works, and that the quality of the audiobook recordings did not significantly affect the price people were willing to pay for the books in print. Heald's later experiment analyzing a random sample of newly-posted works on Amazon.com revealed that public domain works from 1880 were posted at double the rate of copyrighted works from 1980.