I don't think it's just when it was that's significant here. Some works simply age slower than others. Stephen King's "It" is 30 years old. It doesn't seem i

I don't think it's just when it was that's significant here. Some works simply age slower than others. Stephen King's "It" is 30 years old. It doesn't seem insane that he should be making money off the recent cinema adaptation. Games feel a lot more ephemeral. They're not being commercial exploited for 30 years. In some cases the franchise is, fine. In most cases, it's nowhere near 30 years. "Not worth preserving" is basically the industry admitting this! But we can't wait 30, 70, whatever years to preserve WoW, for example. Most of the work needs to be done while the servers are still available. Even if you wait 95 years to publish the work, the work has to be done while it's not legal. It's the only way it's possible. That disconnect seems nuts to me. I think this is something our copyright legislation is ill-equipped for - having to admit that not all works are created equally. A book might be profitable for an entire lifetime. A game is not. Trying to pretend the same solution can solve both problems will only fracture the system.