I'm not against reproduction if care is taken to preserve what can be preserved, as close to the original as possible while giving credit, compensating creators, etc. In your example, I think reproduction/conservation technology was available but the studios couldn't justify spending the time/money it would cost to preserve their entire library. Who would have paid for that? I don't know. Supposedly, half of Van Gogh's entire lifetime output was burned because he was too poor to find a place to store it. At the same time, I'd rather see a bug-eaten Van Gogh with fugitive reds long faded away, than a flat, lifeless high-def copy. I suppose it's a complex subject and each work is unique. Sometimes I'm thrilled when I can find an old page in "Wayback Machine" but what they manage to save is typically broken and low quality.