> On the first point, I think that renewal is a poor proxy for determining which works are are orphaned or no longer have commercial value, instead just showing

> On the first point, I think that renewal is a poor proxy for determining which works are are orphaned or no longer have commercial value, instead just showing which copyright holders have the most diligent book keeping. Large number of published works will loose copyright protection just due to oversight. A simple mistake shouldn't result in disproportionate consequences (loss of decades of revenue). At the same time other works that are no longer available on the market will be prevented from entering public domain by companies that just renew everything. So in other words, renewing should cost a decent amount of money, so that not every work is worth renewing? I don't really see the fact that people will let things enter the public domain sooner as a downside, even if it would (theoretically) have earned them more money. If they aren't organized enough to renew the copyright, why would they be organized enough to actually use the work?