> The law actually balances many considerations, profit is only one of them. Maybe educate yourself, archival copies are one of the many exemptions to copyright.

One can say a lot about copyright law, but saying it 'balances' many considerations is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. Copyright law pays lip service to a number of non-commercial interests, like archiving (up to a point).

On the whole, it is strongly biased toward the interests of the big publishing industry that has managed, over the years, to greatly expand its scope and duration.

Just wait for it, it's almost time for another term extension, or else Steamboat Willy is going to become public domain in a few years.

> Just wait for it, it's almost time for another term extension, or else Steamboat Willy is going to become public domain in a few years.

This is broadly a myth.

Most extensions of copyright globally have been about unification of duration, which tends to settle at the longest as any international treaties about anything do. Ultimately Germany and France were the biggest drivers of this globally, far more than works out of the US.

Now that process and unification has broadly happened (at least for newer works) it's unlikely there will be any meaningful term extensions. It's not impossible that some works that receive lower protections might be equalised, or that there might be some mandatory collective schemes for works of completely unknown provenance, but even they seem unlikely.

The truth is that a term extension for Steamboat doesn't really do much for Disney for the political capital required to obtain it. They still have the trademark effectively in perpetuity, Steamboat itself as a work generates no revenue, and there's no real risk to Mickey as a character as Disney likes to portray him nowadays anyway as it's materially different.

Steamboat Willy is a massive red herring in terms of discussion of copyright policy.

I assume you intended to link to 108 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives) rather than 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use): https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

In any case, profit is a specific limitation on what libraries and archives can do:

108(h)(2) -- No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if—

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

I would say B is debatable in all cases considering you'd have to factor in the costs of ebook medium, and the fact that there is a real argument that agreeing to publisher's licensing/DRM scheme can be trivially argued to be an unreasonable price.

Throw in the constraints arising from social distancing strongly disfavoring physical purchasing, and it sounds to me like the industry is simply refusing to adapt to the times.

If people will not purchase your book at the price you set it at, I'd argue that it isn't a reasonable price. Further, if you invest large amounts of capital into technological infrastructure to thwart free dissemination of digital content, and people decide not to aid you by recouping your investment through purchases, I'd consider that the Invisible Hand at work.

The publishing industry is less a disseminate anymore, but more an IP speculator. I file them with patent trolls at this point.