Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

"An argument can be made that copyright law should be somewhat like 19th Century US mining law. That is, that anyone can stake a claim, but you have to improve your claim annually to keep it. [...]

[...]

"For example, Disney Corporation owns the government copyright for both Mickey Mouse and the movie Song of the South. Mickey Mouse is very profitable to them on an annual basis, and is available for retail purchase and use from Disney. Therefore, with this change to copyright law, they should be able to keep Mickey Mouse as their exclusive property until it is no longer profitable to them.

"However, Disney refuses to retail sell the movie Song of the South, for whatever reasons. And while that is their business decision, they have no legitimate right to government protection of a product they refuse to retail. They should be able to choose not to sell it themselves, but they should not be able to use the law to prevent others from selling the movie, if [they have previously marketed it]."

-- Mary T. Johnson, 2008-08-14

[The first paragraph reminded me of the old copyright law under which copyright could be extended one time at the end of the initial copyright period, but the copyright holder had to act in order for the extension to apply. Note that Song of the South is an interesting example to use here, given the reasons Disney might have for keeping a lid on it other than just wanting to prevent anybody but themselves from making a buck off it.]