If they start losing copyright, they start losing back catalog. I doubt there&#x27;s a huge demand for the 1920s Steamboat Willie [1], but in 2032 they&#x27;ll lose Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and in 2035, Pinnochio.<p>Of course, that&#x27;s an awfully long ways off by a time-value-of-money analysis at the rates a modern company would normally use, so the other thing to look at and be... outraged? perturbed? surprised?... at is <i>just how goddamned cheap</i> Congress has historically been. Did you notice this line:<p>&quot;In one instance, Eisner paid Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) $1,000 on the very same day that he signed on as a co-sponsor.&quot;<p>I mean, I presume that&#x27;s not necessarily their only <i>cough</i> &quot;donation&quot; to the Senate Majority Leader, but one presumes that the Majority Leader ought to command a price premium, too, and for $1000 to be a notable donation to talk about, well, holy cow. I&#x27;d bet Disney wouldn&#x27;t pay $10 billion as a lump sum in 2023 to extend copyright again... but we&#x27;re not talking <i>anywhere near</i> that sort of money to get copyright extended. If they can do it for &lt;$10 million, the cost&#x2F;benefit is a no-brainer.<p>Remember, the value to Disney only has to exceed their expected costs. If their expected costs for a copyright extension is an accounting rounding error, of course they&#x27;re going to try to extend it.<p>[1]: Which, if you&#x27;ve never seen it before, I recommend giving it a view: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=BBgghnQF6E4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=BBgghnQF6E4</a> The past is a foreign country!