Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeB1972
Besides, people tend to look at things as a whole, and as this looks like a rights grab it is understandable that people will automatically take a cautious view of any claims made by the same people.
|
Going from "they want to retain their copyright" to "... so they must be a corrupt organisation who are using their income to enrich themselves rather than donating it to charity as they claim to do" is a bit of a stretch. It feels like a rather crude attempt at mudslinging because the organisation is doing something that the poster disapproves of.
Nate pointed out the self-evident fact that the work (may have) entered the public domain in life+50 countries 20 years ago. This is of course true, but the key point here is that next year it will/may enter the public domain
in the country in which its original language is spoken, which would obviously have a far greater impact on the copyright holder.