7 ms·

>The Dr. Seuss books were banned not just by eBay but also by their publisher I don't see the problem here. The copyright owner's no longer wish to distribute

>The Dr. Seuss books were banned not just by eBay but also by their publisher I don't see the problem here. The copyright owner's no longer wish to distribute certain items in their intellectual property collection? So? I don't see people concerned that Disney isn't pulling "Song of the South" out of their vault, or isn't streaming it on Disney+. What's the alternative you want? The government to FORCE artists to publish? FORCE Ebay to list these particular Dr. Seuss books? What the hell?? Isn't that worse?

NeverFade 6y ago
Disney is a great example. It's a huge copyright owners which owns the rights to numerous important cultural works. They can, very effectively, decide what ideas the American public will have access to. Yes, this is all legal. However, legally, the commissars of the Soviet Union also had the right and the power to ban ideas, books, works of art, and every form of expression. The problem is the result: a small elite group of cultural commissars controlling the flow of ideas, and shutting undesirable ideas out of the public discourse and the public mind. That is how totalitarian regimes are created and maintained. Incidentally, the "government force" in copyright protection is the protection of copyright. That was done for the explicit purpose of fostering the publication of works, since the American lawmakers could never imagine that there will come a time in which huge corporations will ban books on political grounds. All the government has to do is to stop enforcing copyright protection for copyright-owners who no longer publish the copyrighted works. Guaranteed other publishers will pick up these Dr. Seuss books, since he is by far the most popular children's books author of our time. As things stand, bid these books adieu. Your children will not be able to read them.
- CabSauce 6y ago
  Except this isn't the government 'banning' anything. And there's never been more access to information. You're just whining.
- hbrav 6y ago
  This is not how totalitarian regimes are created at all. Commissars in the USSR having the power to ban books meant repercussions from the state for reading or distributing those books, and was a clear signal that similar works would meet a similar fate. The publisher deciding to no longer sell some part of their work is entirely different. It makes no difference to your ability to enjoy a copy you own or to sell it to someone else. Nor does it affect your ability to create a similar illustrated children's book including whatever stereotypes you desire. No one is 'banning' you from doing this, although it might diminish their opinion of you.
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    This is not how totalitarian regimes were created in the past. Once expressions of ideas are effectively banned, you are in a totalitarian, oppressive regime. It doesn't matter whether that banning was done by the state or by huge monopolistic corporations: the end result is the same. Also, in this case, while corporations are leading the way, we also see increasingly loud calls for our government to step in and criminalize some forms of speech, for example those deemed "hate speech": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html This is really a two-pronged attack on free speech and the free exchange of ideas: in the private sphere, individuals and companies move to effectively ban certain expressions, such as the publication of "objectionable" books. In the public sphere, there are moves to criminalize "objectionable" expressions. The actions in each sphere reciprocally support each other, and normalize the idea that the free exchange of ideas must be policed and restricted.
everdrive 6y ago
It's a poor decision on the company's part, and we are criticizing the decision. No one (reasonable) is asking the government to regulate this. We're merely criticizing the decisions of two private companies, and the social movements which pressured them to do so. It was public criticism, or the fear of public criticism that led them to make this decision in the first place, so this seems like a perfectly fine line of argument to make. (ie, that this was a poor decision on their part.)
- nawgz 6y ago
  Can you expand on how not continuing to distribute materials with racial representations from a time when skin color determined humanity / slavery is a poor decision? I do not like to see what I am seeing in this HN thread. I think that not propagating offensive, dehumanizing views publicly seems perfectly wise.
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    This newfound moral outrage is hilarious. President Obama praised and recommended Dr. Seuss books in an official press release as recently as 2015, his last year as president. Now they are suddenly "outrageous and unacceptable".
    - nawgz 6y ago
      I don’t think I used that quote, implied Dr Seuss doesn’t have all time classics without ethical issues, nor acted morally outraged. I did ask a question. “Hilarious” how you missed that.
      - skyde 6y ago
        if you associate Black people with literal monkeys you are the one that is racist. All the book is explicitly saying is that it would be a good idea to hire a person of African origin to work at the zoo. This have some logic to it in a child mind because they could assume they would know best how to take care of those animals. It's obviously a caricature but nowhere does it say African people are animals or monkey. This is all originating from your own racism.
lupire 6y ago
Song of the South is a good movie especially for its time (Black representation in film) that Disney destroyed because of its aversion to controversy. Since actual Black people are unpopular in racist America, honest portrayals of Black people are considered offensive, effectively removing Black people and characters from mainstream culture unless they "act white". Slavery is terrible, and since black people were enslaved, literature about Black American's lives from before 1865 is not acceptable. This is bad.

NeverFade 6y ago

Disney is a great example. It's a huge copyright owners which owns the rights to numerous important cultural works. They can, very effectively, decide what ideas the American public will have access to. Yes, this is all legal. However, legally, the commissars of the Soviet Union also had the right and the power to ban ideas, books, works of art, and every form of expression. The problem is the result: a small elite group of cultural commissars controlling the flow of ideas, and shutting undesirable ideas out of the public discourse and the public mind. That is how totalitarian regimes are created and maintained. Incidentally, the "government force" in copyright protection is the protection of copyright. That was done for the explicit purpose of fostering the publication of works, since the American lawmakers could never imagine that there will come a time in which huge corporations will ban books on political grounds. All the government has to do is to stop enforcing copyright protection for copyright-owners who no longer publish the copyrighted works. Guaranteed other publishers will pick up these Dr. Seuss books, since he is by far the most popular children's books author of our time. As things stand, bid these books adieu. Your children will not be able to read them.

CabSauce 6y ago
Except this isn't the government 'banning' anything. And there's never been more access to information. You're just whining.
hbrav 6y ago
This is not how totalitarian regimes are created at all. Commissars in the USSR having the power to ban books meant repercussions from the state for reading or distributing those books, and was a clear signal that similar works would meet a similar fate. The publisher deciding to no longer sell some part of their work is entirely different. It makes no difference to your ability to enjoy a copy you own or to sell it to someone else. Nor does it affect your ability to create a similar illustrated children's book including whatever stereotypes you desire. No one is 'banning' you from doing this, although it might diminish their opinion of you.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  This is not how totalitarian regimes were created in the past. Once expressions of ideas are effectively banned, you are in a totalitarian, oppressive regime. It doesn't matter whether that banning was done by the state or by huge monopolistic corporations: the end result is the same. Also, in this case, while corporations are leading the way, we also see increasingly loud calls for our government to step in and criminalize some forms of speech, for example those deemed "hate speech": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html This is really a two-pronged attack on free speech and the free exchange of ideas: in the private sphere, individuals and companies move to effectively ban certain expressions, such as the publication of "objectionable" books. In the public sphere, there are moves to criminalize "objectionable" expressions. The actions in each sphere reciprocally support each other, and normalize the idea that the free exchange of ideas must be policed and restricted.

everdrive 6y ago

It's a poor decision on the company's part, and we are criticizing the decision. No one (reasonable) is asking the government to regulate this. We're merely criticizing the decisions of two private companies, and the social movements which pressured them to do so. It was public criticism, or the fear of public criticism that led them to make this decision in the first place, so this seems like a perfectly fine line of argument to make. (ie, that this was a poor decision on their part.)

nawgz 6y ago
Can you expand on how not continuing to distribute materials with racial representations from a time when skin color determined humanity / slavery is a poor decision? I do not like to see what I am seeing in this HN thread. I think that not propagating offensive, dehumanizing views publicly seems perfectly wise.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  This newfound moral outrage is hilarious. President Obama praised and recommended Dr. Seuss books in an official press release as recently as 2015, his last year as president. Now they are suddenly "outrageous and unacceptable".
  - nawgz 6y ago
    I don’t think I used that quote, implied Dr Seuss doesn’t have all time classics without ethical issues, nor acted morally outraged. I did ask a question. “Hilarious” how you missed that.
    - skyde 6y ago
      if you associate Black people with literal monkeys you are the one that is racist. All the book is explicitly saying is that it would be a good idea to hire a person of African origin to work at the zoo. This have some logic to it in a child mind because they could assume they would know best how to take care of those animals. It's obviously a caricature but nowhere does it say African people are animals or monkey. This is all originating from your own racism.

lupire 6y ago

Song of the South is a good movie especially for its time (Black representation in film) that Disney destroyed because of its aversion to controversy. Since actual Black people are unpopular in racist America, honest portrayals of Black people are considered offensive, effectively removing Black people and characters from mainstream culture unless they "act white". Slavery is terrible, and since black people were enslaved, literature about Black American's lives from before 1865 is not acceptable. This is bad.