4 ms·

Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they d

by spc476 6y ago

Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute.

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. I'm not sure why you think that's germane. Amazon Inc owns the privilege of choosing what they offer for sale just like any other business. This is free enterprise, my friend. Should we also demand that vegan grocers sell meat? Are we to raise a ruckus if our local 7-11 doesn't also serve eggplant parm with its taquitos?
- carlio 6y ago
  I think the difference is one says "we don't want to sell our book" and the other says "we don't want to sell your book". Of course it's free market, I don't have a huge issue with either decision, but I think that's the nuance the above poster was getting at.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    That doesn't explain why they think that that detail is germane to this conversation. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with someone saying "I'm ok with my spit in my mouth but not your spit." I get to decide what goes in my mouth, and you get to decide what goes in your mouth, yeah? I don't care whether you want your spit to be in my mouth. We both get to decide for ourselves.
    - carlio 6y ago
      I think the discussion changes slightly if you make your money from allowing people to spit in your mouth though. And allow people to build a business model around the assumption they can continue spitting in your mouth. (this is the strangest HN comment thread I've taken part in)
      - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        Not meaningfully. If I let people spit in my mouth for money I still have every right to say "no, not you" because having their spit in my mouth platform affects me emotionally. If people start to assume that my mouth is a free-for-all, those people can fuck all the way off, yeah?
- tester34 6y ago
  Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it for some odd reasons, because otherwise at this scale it's some kind of censorship? At some scale we can't act like "it's just private business" because it's naive
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    > Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. No, the vegan shop HAS DECIDED to not sell meat. They could just as easily decide to sell parma ham to worthy customers and stop being an exclusively vegan shop. Do you think that 7-11 is "expected" to not sell eggplant parm too? Why not? They already sell pizza and taquitos. But I don't get to make them sell eggplant parm if they don't want to even though eggplant parm would go great with taquitos. > Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it Ok, so, 94 countries have no criminal legislation prohibiting slavery according to https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596 https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost.... So should Amazon, the global seller of everything, also sell slaves in those countries? I mean if they're expected to not decide to not sell something because they don't like it, surely the answer must be yes.
    - tester34 6y ago
      Sure let's jump into extremas There's giant gap between selling slaves and selling books that challenge some way of perceiving things. One causes actual harm - both physically and mentally, the second at best triggers some people. Was academically proven that this book is bullshit? if yes, then everything's fair, if not then...? I'd rather avoid allowing corpos to decide what's the truth
      - gremlinsinc 6y ago
        So you're saying we should socialize Amazon because it's too big to be one corporation? Furthermore, they shouldn't be able to dictate what they sell on their platform? I mean a lot of people on here hate socialism (I don't, though I dis-like authoritarian versions), it seems though a lot of the people crying foul about corps censoring are the same ones who are libertarian-leaning anti-regulation for everybody and every company and are very leery of "socialism". I'd agree with Amazon having too much power over it's brand and what it sells, though I don't feel this is an issue. I'm more concerned with Amazon selling knock-off products of its vendors under it's own brand-name then removing their "competing" products. I'm also more concerned with google/apple's control over the app stores, especially Apple since you can't side-load apps. While, I abhor parler, for example - I can see them doing this more and more with any social media app that could potentially disagree with their world view. I'd like to see more censorship resistant apps pop up just for the sake of freedom (even to be a jerk), I'm also a fan of decentralizing everything some-day and owning your identity and I think Google/Apple could hinder that if they see these de-centralized apps as extremist-enabling apps (even if they aren't really) and just blanket dis-allow them. There's a fine-line that leftists (and I am one) are walking with censoring everything. I keep thinking of "thought police" in 1984, and it makes me think that even well-intentioned ideas can back-fire and create the very thing they're trying to avoid. At the same time the terrorism at the capital was scary, we came very close to losing our entire country and installing a dictator for life. So we need to avoid that, but also retain freedoms and the internets "wild west" ability to bring marginalized voices to the fore-front but not if they're inciting violence. Kind of an autistic ramble, but I don't know what the best options are. I think we need new social networks and news networks that grade everything around perceived "truthfulness" and you can also see who ranked what and what side they lean politically so you know if their ranking is biased, or something. Somedays I think we'd all just be better if a solar flare hits and disabled electronics for the next 20 months.
- mikecoles 6y ago
  Thankfully for 7-11, they don't bake cakes.
edflsafoiewq 6y ago
Doesn't that make it worse? If Amazon won't sell a book you can buy it somewhere else. But a copyright holder possesses the government-backed power to restrict anyone from producing a copy. They can restrict the total number of copies in circulation for a very long time.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. The idea that not owning the copyright on a work obligates you to offer it for sale is as bizarre as the idea that the same obligates you to purchase it would be. (In fact, the former implies the latter.)

by spc476 6y ago

Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute.

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago

> Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. I'm not sure why you think that's germane. Amazon Inc owns the privilege of choosing what they offer for sale just like any other business. This is free enterprise, my friend. Should we also demand that vegan grocers sell meat? Are we to raise a ruckus if our local 7-11 doesn't also serve eggplant parm with its taquitos?

carlio 6y ago
I think the difference is one says "we don't want to sell our book" and the other says "we don't want to sell your book". Of course it's free market, I don't have a huge issue with either decision, but I think that's the nuance the above poster was getting at.
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  That doesn't explain why they think that that detail is germane to this conversation. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with someone saying "I'm ok with my spit in my mouth but not your spit." I get to decide what goes in my mouth, and you get to decide what goes in your mouth, yeah? I don't care whether you want your spit to be in my mouth. We both get to decide for ourselves.
  - carlio 6y ago
    I think the discussion changes slightly if you make your money from allowing people to spit in your mouth though. And allow people to build a business model around the assumption they can continue spitting in your mouth. (this is the strangest HN comment thread I've taken part in)
    - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
      Not meaningfully. If I let people spit in my mouth for money I still have every right to say "no, not you" because having their spit in my mouth platform affects me emotionally. If people start to assume that my mouth is a free-for-all, those people can fuck all the way off, yeah?
tester34 6y ago
Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it for some odd reasons, because otherwise at this scale it's some kind of censorship? At some scale we can't act like "it's just private business" because it's naive
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  > Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. No, the vegan shop HAS DECIDED to not sell meat. They could just as easily decide to sell parma ham to worthy customers and stop being an exclusively vegan shop. Do you think that 7-11 is "expected" to not sell eggplant parm too? Why not? They already sell pizza and taquitos. But I don't get to make them sell eggplant parm if they don't want to even though eggplant parm would go great with taquitos. > Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it Ok, so, 94 countries have no criminal legislation prohibiting slavery according to https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596 https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost.... So should Amazon, the global seller of everything, also sell slaves in those countries? I mean if they're expected to not decide to not sell something because they don't like it, surely the answer must be yes.
  - tester34 6y ago
    Sure let's jump into extremas There's giant gap between selling slaves and selling books that challenge some way of perceiving things. One causes actual harm - both physically and mentally, the second at best triggers some people. Was academically proven that this book is bullshit? if yes, then everything's fair, if not then...? I'd rather avoid allowing corpos to decide what's the truth
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      So you're saying we should socialize Amazon because it's too big to be one corporation? Furthermore, they shouldn't be able to dictate what they sell on their platform? I mean a lot of people on here hate socialism (I don't, though I dis-like authoritarian versions), it seems though a lot of the people crying foul about corps censoring are the same ones who are libertarian-leaning anti-regulation for everybody and every company and are very leery of "socialism". I'd agree with Amazon having too much power over it's brand and what it sells, though I don't feel this is an issue. I'm more concerned with Amazon selling knock-off products of its vendors under it's own brand-name then removing their "competing" products. I'm also more concerned with google/apple's control over the app stores, especially Apple since you can't side-load apps. While, I abhor parler, for example - I can see them doing this more and more with any social media app that could potentially disagree with their world view. I'd like to see more censorship resistant apps pop up just for the sake of freedom (even to be a jerk), I'm also a fan of decentralizing everything some-day and owning your identity and I think Google/Apple could hinder that if they see these de-centralized apps as extremist-enabling apps (even if they aren't really) and just blanket dis-allow them. There's a fine-line that leftists (and I am one) are walking with censoring everything. I keep thinking of "thought police" in 1984, and it makes me think that even well-intentioned ideas can back-fire and create the very thing they're trying to avoid. At the same time the terrorism at the capital was scary, we came very close to losing our entire country and installing a dictator for life. So we need to avoid that, but also retain freedoms and the internets "wild west" ability to bring marginalized voices to the fore-front but not if they're inciting violence. Kind of an autistic ramble, but I don't know what the best options are. I think we need new social networks and news networks that grade everything around perceived "truthfulness" and you can also see who ranked what and what side they lean politically so you know if their ranking is biased, or something. Somedays I think we'd all just be better if a solar flare hits and disabled electronics for the next 20 months.
mikecoles 6y ago
Thankfully for 7-11, they don't bake cakes.

edflsafoiewq 6y ago

Doesn't that make it worse? If Amazon won't sell a book you can buy it somewhere else. But a copyright holder possesses the government-backed power to restrict anyone from producing a copy. They can restrict the total number of copies in circulation for a very long time.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. The idea that not owning the copyright on a work obligates you to offer it for sale is as bizarre as the idea that the same obligates you to purchase it would be. (In fact, the former implies the latter.)