Well, his comment isn't that all the stories, or even or that Snow White specifically, were 40-50 years old. There are examples that better fit his argument, and they are not hard to find(I used wikipedia):
Pinocchio, released on 1940, was based on a novel from 1883, 57 years, then. Disney also tried to avoid Bambi copyright (book from 1923, movie released on 1942, 19 years difference), although the court did not uphold its public domain status.
He surely could have referenced better, but I do believe you should have tried to interpret better his comment instead of nitpicking and being unnecessarily aggressive.
Fair enough, but I don't feel any obligation to make his argument for him, and the original claim that I first replied simply seems mistaken to me - and that's not me being uncharitable, because there are other people building new arguments on that incorrect understanding elsewhere in this thread.
Frankly, I think part of the reason there has been so little progress in reverting to more sensible copyright terms is that many opponents of the current standard don't bother to fact-check their arguments, and so they damage their own credibility. Copyright is a political issue, because when we advocate shorter copyright terms we're arguing to reduce the scope of a property right. Inaccurate or hand-wavey arguments work against that end.
Pinocchio, released on 1940, was based on a novel from 1883, 57 years, then. Disney also tried to avoid Bambi copyright (book from 1923, movie released on 1942, 19 years difference), although the court did not uphold its public domain status.
He surely could have referenced better, but I do believe you should have tried to interpret better his comment instead of nitpicking and being unnecessarily aggressive.