The fact that nobody benefits much is very much worth pointing out.  Furthermore absolutely no viable public purpose can be served today by backdating new rules to past works.  We didn&#x27;t create any new works from the 1950s by passing laws in the 1970s.  Those works were already created on incentives that authors already received.  It is just a giveaway to the tiny minority of said authors whose work achieved success.<p>Of course the main driver of this is Disney, which is trying to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright.  (Never mind the fact that trademark is a better fit for how they use it...)<p>Also I&#x27;d like to highlight the 1987 part of the argument.<p>The early computer era saw a lot of games written for platforms like Apple ][ by companies that went out of business and the copyright ownership went to places unknown (though they theoretically exist).  You can&#x27;t make and pass around legal copies of them from the floppies that they originally came from.  Some of the games (Ultima, PacMan, etc) would likely see copyright renewed.  But a lot of them would not.  And that would be great for people like me that want to revisit our childhoods.<p>In fact historically there were stories that only became popular BECAUSE they fell out of copyright.  The most famous example is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalipmatters.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;17&#x2F;when-a-quirk-of-copyright-law-creates-a-christmas-classic-its-a-wonderful-life-and-the-public-domain" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.globalipmatters.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;17&#x2F;when-a-quirk-of-c...</a> but it isn&#x27;t alone.  Just think what new cultural gems we might create if artists of today could safely refer back to works from a generation or two ago.