Talk:Public Domain Enhancement Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can someone please clarify all of this in a manner that is not legal jargon? So, if I still wanted to use a work from Shakespeare, I'd be okay, but if someone who paid a 1$ tax to keep a copyrighted work copyrighted, I would have to ask them permission?

Yes, you could still use a work from Shakespeare, because that has gone out of copyright. No one could pay $1 to get a work back in copyright. Instead, this is to allow works that are still in copyright to get out of copyright if no one cares enough to pay the one dollar. Yes, you have to ask permission for works that are still in copyright unless what you are doing falls under fair use. Hope that helps. Jrincayc 12:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Act of 1909[edit]

I believe that what this article says about the 1909 Act is not what the Act says. The 1909 Act called for a 28-year term renewable once for a total duration 56 years, not an initial term of 50 years renewable for another 45. I think that something like this was discussed by Congress at the time, at least the 50-year original term; Mark Twain was one of the people who testified for this as someone who had been a victim of the failure to do much to prosecute violators of the previous law and as someone who had made his main living as a creator. But this is not what passed in 1909. Rlquall 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking both bills from the 108th and 109th Congress, I have found major errors in this article. Instead of paying 1 USD per work once, I have found that after 50 years since the first publication, this Act also requires copyright renewal registration every 10 years, so getting 95-year copyright for works for hire will require 5 renewal registrations, not just once.--Jusjih 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible disadvantage?[edit]

One disadvantage that immediately occurs to me when I read this is that foreign copyright holders have the advantage that they don't have to pay the fees or register works, which might provide them a commercial competitive advantage over domestic copyright holders. Does Lessig or anyone else discuss this? Dcoetzee 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

The article is clearly written by an editor/editors in favor of this act, as the wording enthusiastically supports it, takes mere opinions as facts, and presents those who oppose these changes in an unrealistic, biased way. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took another look at the article, and I think the NPOV issue is moot, as the topic of this article doesn't seem to meet notability standards - it is proposed US legislation from several years ago that was never passed, and it has had little impact. Since there are no specific notability guidelines for failed legislation, I wanted to bring the point up here rather than putting a tag on the article to get other editor's opinions. Hartboy (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had no direct policy impact, but it represents an issue which many people are concerned about, and which is likely to be raised again in various forms in the future... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, will remove {prod} tag. Ipsign (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing NPOV tag; DreamGuy's neutrality issues are not clear to me, and he's failed to make any improvements in over a year. Daburow (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]