ADDENDUM: links are fixed. Thanks!

Mark Helprin, a novelist and senior fellow at The Claremont Institute, has this NYT op-ed arguing that Congress should continue to extend the term of copyright.

At Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin critiques on the important distinctions between real and intellectual property and unconstitutionality of the proposal.

At PrawfsBlawg, James Grimmelmann critiques on wealth redistribution.

The idea is similar to Landes & Posner proposal for indefinitely renewable copyright.

In the Landes & Posner proposal, depreciation of creative works over time softens the incentive effect that copyright supposedly has on innovation. In fact, unlike Landes&Posner, Helprin pays no attention to the supply elasticity of innovation. His argument is geared toward maximizing the wealth that accrues to descendants of the innovator/artist. Interpretation? Simple. The debate over copyright ain't about innovation; it's all about rent re-distribution. See also:

a) Lawyers for big time chefs are angling to protect recipes and cooking techniques. See this Food and Wine article on Hector Cantu, chef at Chicago's famous Moto. With a normative case here:

after all, chefs are certainly as creative as any other artists, but they receive no royalties, there are few ways of making serious money from cooking, and only a handful are good enough at both art and business to create a restaurant empire. And is creating an empire the solution?

b) The Design Piracy Protection Act would extend copyright protection to fashion designers for a period of three years. The fashion industry is historically well organized, cohesive almost. See Fashion Originators Guild of America v. Federal Trade Commission (1941), case here. (HT: Tanya Birman, my student)

Here's a good overview of the normative arguments by Wendy McElroy.