I actually don't understand why the so-called Mickey Mouse copyright extensions aren't treated on a case-by-case basis or at least don't require renewal say every 20 years so truly orphaned works can do what they're meant to and go into the public domain.
That being said, patents have time limits. Why do copyright holders feel like they have the right to profit in perpetuity? It seems inconsistent and not in the public interest but I don't need Mickey Mouse to be in the public domain. Orphaned works however should become so.
I don't think the big copyright holder view it in terms of rights or public interest. They have a financial interest, and they act to preserve and extend that. That's not surprising. One of the major problems, perhaps the largest problem, is that such players have a disproportionate voice with legislators. The advocates on the other side are few and relatively disorganized, and the common voter really doesn't care.
Even without cynicism about politicians being bought, it's a matter of which side of the argument makes a more compelling case. I think the big stakeholders do a better job at this.
That's the problem with party-driven politics; the limited scope of which issues decide elections. Copyright is never a frontline issue during elections because there are always bigger problems. In effect, democracy doesn't apply to copyright legislation because the majority doesn't let IP decide their vote.
It's not at all a problem with party-driven politics. The problem is that the government and the parliaments in the US don't accurately represent the people.
That's a problem with a broken democracy. In Europe you don't have that problem, at least not to such an extreme extend.
You have to understand that the IP industry sees public domain content as competition, they want to restrict the amount of stuff in the public domain as much as possible.
Also, if people get used to things being in the public domain, they might start to question how much sense it makes to have the government go around granting monopolies (copyright and patents).
It seems inconsistent and not in the public interest but I don't need Mickey Mouse to be in the public domain
Honestly, I agree with you. I suspect it is in part because at this point Mickey Mouse is practically Disney's logo, and we certainly don't expire other company's rights to their logos.
In that case Mickey Mouse is already protected as a trademark. The real question isn't if Mickey is protected, but if Steamboat Willie is protected from now until the end of time.
Who cares about Steamboat Willie, or Disney for that matter?
I care about that there will be little to no public domain between now and when I die. And I don't care about X popular work of the hour; I care about the myriads of media that have been orphaned.
Disney and its ilk can afford archiving services, and do as such. Many studios, authors, musicians and such may either have a copy or perhaps even lost it (thinking of Prince of Persia source recently found). Do we just let all but the most popular die in the annals of recorded-but-forgotten history.
DRM is just another chapter, in which the Twilights, Titanics, and Harry Potters are recorded unencrypted, but the minor films and media are forgotten.
That being said, patents have time limits. Why do copyright holders feel like they have the right to profit in perpetuity? It seems inconsistent and not in the public interest but I don't need Mickey Mouse to be in the public domain. Orphaned works however should become so.