T, thanks for keeping us posted on this. The thread is fascinating, but the information is frustrating.

Jcdevildog is surprised that most of us are opposed to the copyright extension. I think most of us are in favor of a songwriter's rights, but there has to be a reasonable limit. A copyright that lasts over a hundred years isn't reasonable. Let's say I wrote a song - I collect royalties on it for a while, but then it's time for me to retire and set up a secure source of income for myself. I can sell my rights to a company, but what company is going to buy my rights if there's only five years left on the copyright?
I have a friend who worked as a freelance photographer in the 1960's and 1970's, traveling with Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez. Now he's 60 years old and his income is limited, but he still has rights to those photos, and he gets four or five thousand bucks a year for use of those 35-yr-old photographs. If his copyrights expired five years from now, who would buy them? Those photos are a substantial part of his retirement income.
On the other hand, there is a point when photos and songs and literature become part of our culture. That's not legally "public domain," but it certainly seems from a moral standpoint that certain things should belong to the public. Isn't it time for the works of Cole Porter, the Gershwins, and Rogers and Hammerstein to belong to the public? What about the works of Woody Guthrie - would Woody want people to have to pay for his work after all these years? What about the works of lesser-known composers and writers - if their work isn't saleable, will copyright doom them to oblivion?
I believe in compensation for writers and artists - but a copyright of over a hundred years is downright unreasonable.
-Joe Offer-