Fresh off a pro-Eldred editorial (An Abuse of Copyright), the New York Times (reg. req.) publishes a commentary by Kevin Kelly, who helped launch WIRED, taking down one of Hollywood's favorite pro-retroactive extension arguments (Making My Own Music). The argument the MPAA makes, and Solicitor General Olson parrots, is that without extended copyright protection, there is no incentive to digitize movies nearing the limit of copyright. Never mind the fact that copyright holders have done a relatively poor job preserving these older films even when they were covered by copyright. Kelly provides an answer: the public, in particular, film buffs. As Kelly points out, volunteers have already helped digitize and preserve more than 20,000 text works in the public domain. I can imagine a foundation that takes donations and lets the donors vote as to which films to digitize next based on a number of considerations. As funds reach the appropriate level, the films gets digitized.
One might also ask, why doesn't the Directors Guild of America do something about this? After all, one would think that they would be interested in the preservation of their members work. Why doesn't the DGA have a clause put in standard directors contracts that would require the movie studios (the copyright holders) make an effort to preserve the works as technology changes? Wouldn't famous and rich directors help lead this battle to preserve the work of their predecessors?
Kelly also has an interesting article on the potential of free music, originally published by the New York Times (Where Music Will Be Coming From). [Note to NY Times: If the article was available via your website, I would have linked to it there. Guess you lose the advertising revenue. And how many people will pay $2.95 to read it?]