So, basically The WDC has five years to finagle another 20 year extension on their copyrights - any bets on how much they'll spend lobbying Congress?

Does this mean that we'll get new releases into the public domain every year from now on, as would make sense? Or will they arrive in clumps every 5 years as Comte post seems to indicate, which makes no sense?

For the record I despise the Rat King. The content the Rat King controls is often awesome, a lot of pure rat shit, but unfortunately a lot of pure gold as well. DEATH TO THE RAT KING!!!

I predict a major push by Disney as we approach 1928.

That's the year of "Steamboat Willie," the first appearance of Mickey Mouse, and Disney will not tolerate his image passing into the public domain.

@1:

I didn't mean to suggest there would be five year lags; I believe under the law copyrights expire on an annual basis, based on the date of original publication/exhibition. I only meant that Disney is probably already working on a plan to extend the copyright again, as they did last time, in order to ensure their intellectual property NEVER lapses into the public domain.

@4 thanks for the clarification Comte. Yes, I fully expect the rapid Rat will fight as well. DEATH TO THE RAT KING.

@6, Are fucking kidding me? That's some pretty thin cover for a corporate shill.
Disney wants to protect profits. period. full stop. Their mouse is now a trademark, so no problem there, but they don't want to lose control of any potential revenue stream.
The whole point of the copyright is that it allows the AUTHOR of the work to earn a reward for it before the work becomes a free part of the society for everyone's benefit. This was meant to encourage creative work not dynasties or corporate holdings.

@8, Well, that "should" is the whole point to theory of copyright law (not to mention patents, which have a much shorter protection), isn't it?

Is the motivation for having protection in the first place commercial, i.e., who gets the chance to make money off creative work? Or is it part of the "inherent dignity" of creativity, so that it's only fair that the creator of a work controls it, for whatever end, commercial or purely artistic or something else?