Respectfully, I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree with anything you've just written, and nor do my prior posts. "If a Disney property enters publ

Respectfully, I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree with anything you've just written, and nor do my prior posts. "If a Disney property enters public domain then people other than Disney can make money." Correct. And Disney argues the opposite: that, if its properties enter the public domain, they'll be devalued. Nobody will want to make money off of them. Hence, my point that Disney (and others who champion the anti-public domain argument) is wrong about that. Case in point: Disney itself, who makes a lot of money reviving old public-domain properties. When it comes to the public domain, Disney wants to have its cake and eat it, too. It happily revitalizes and capitalizes on properties in the public domain -- then it turns around and argues that its own properties should never enter the public domain, because the public domain is a deadpool. That argument is silly on its face, and Disney is living proof of it.