Today, the copyright term is pushing 110+ years, in part thanks to Disney.
That means the next Walt Disney has to pull from increasingly culturally irrelevant works that are 3, 4 generations old rather than one.
Again I'm not endorsing Disney's copyright practices here but let's keep the discussion grounded in fact, shall we?
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.
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.
(Yes, this is a Tu Quoque argument)