>>149649458
>>149649500
The whole thing as about giant corporations wanting copyright to last for as long as possible is a bit complicated but the passive income is a good starting point to explain it. You obviously don't spend that much money to keep an old movie on a streaming service.
But we do get to the elephant in the room, which is that the vast majority of what they produce is largely useless to them in the long run. Most movies, TV shows, books, etc are not constantly in publication or get derivatives for 95 years, I'm pretty most of them are pretty much forgotten within the the first 30 years, which means it's silly for copyright to apply 95 years after publication in most cases. Of course, giant corporations do effectively throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks and once in awhile you get something like Batman, which really does turn a profit 80+ years later. So it's effectively about protecting what little works out like that.
Of course, I doubt DC will stop publishing Batman just because the character becomes public domain, the book simply sells way too well and the public domain obviously don't prevent you from just continuing. But, it would mean that DC's Batman will no longer be the only Batman, meaning they can't... Well... Expect the audience to stick to their version no matter what like they have before...
