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."