3 ms·

I am not sure that I follow. I think "using copyright" does imply that it is done by the copyright holders. I disagree that it being done by the copyright holde

I am not sure that I follow. I think "using copyright" does imply that it is done by the copyright holders. I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. There are other examples of using copyright for censorship. The infamous book by the mustache man was prevented from being reprinted in Germany until 2016 by the copyright holder (Bavaria's state government) [1]. Use of DMCA notices by corporations to suppress disparaging news about security vulnerabilities is another example. Do you believe these are not instances of censorship? [1]: https://archive.is/6EMYF#selection-3131.0-3143.129 https://archive.is/6EMYF#selection-3131.0-3143.129

edmundsauto 5y ago
What’s the difference between something like the Dr. Seuss issue, and an estate not releasing something written in the first place? Neither seem remotely close to censorship to me, but I’m curious if you think the key difference is revoking access to something once released.
CRConrad 5y ago
> I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. Not the GP, but I assume they meant that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue in terms of censorship: Censorship is something that's done to copyright holders. What they themselves do is something else. [EDIT:] So, yes, I would say at least your Knausgaard -- oops, no, the other guy with a similarly-named book -- example is not censorship. Something similar, but not quite the same thing. [/EDIT]
- finite_jest 5y ago
  I don't think censorship really has much to do with copyright. A book can certainly be in public domain, and still be censored. It is mostly about infringing the restricting the ability of individuals to choose what they would like to read, hear, and watch; and also infringing their right to free expression. :-) On the topic of the book by he-who-must-not-be-named, I beg to differ. The intention is quite clear, copyright is just the means to achieve it. Here is a Gedankenexperiment: assume that there is a jurisdiction in which the state, instead of the estate [1], automatically becomes the copyright holder after the author of a work passes away. [2] If the state starts making rules on which books by dead authors cannot be published, wouldn't you call it censorship? [1]: Sorry for the a-maize-ingly corny and unfunny dad joke, couldn't resist. [2]: This is not too far fetched, apparently this is roughly what has happened with you-know-what in Bavaria.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    I just think "censorship" means something directed at whoever is trying to say something a la "I've been censored!". Trying to stop people from hearing a message without a specific sender, that's just "out there", is somethnig slightly different so IMO it should also be called something different. "Suppression (of ideas)", perhaps? Something like that. But yeah, I agree: Let's not mention Kn***rd's name again.

edmundsauto 5y ago

What’s the difference between something like the Dr. Seuss issue, and an estate not releasing something written in the first place? Neither seem remotely close to censorship to me, but I’m curious if you think the key difference is revoking access to something once released.

CRConrad 5y ago

> I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. Not the GP, but I assume they meant that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue in terms of censorship: Censorship is something that's done to copyright holders. What they themselves do is something else. [EDIT:] So, yes, I would say at least your Knausgaard -- oops, no, the other guy with a similarly-named book -- example is not censorship. Something similar, but not quite the same thing. [/EDIT]

finite_jest 5y ago
I don't think censorship really has much to do with copyright. A book can certainly be in public domain, and still be censored. It is mostly about infringing the restricting the ability of individuals to choose what they would like to read, hear, and watch; and also infringing their right to free expression. :-) On the topic of the book by he-who-must-not-be-named, I beg to differ. The intention is quite clear, copyright is just the means to achieve it. Here is a Gedankenexperiment: assume that there is a jurisdiction in which the state, instead of the estate [1], automatically becomes the copyright holder after the author of a work passes away. [2] If the state starts making rules on which books by dead authors cannot be published, wouldn't you call it censorship? [1]: Sorry for the a-maize-ingly corny and unfunny dad joke, couldn't resist. [2]: This is not too far fetched, apparently this is roughly what has happened with you-know-what in Bavaria.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  I just think "censorship" means something directed at whoever is trying to say something a la "I've been censored!". Trying to stop people from hearing a message without a specific sender, that's just "out there", is somethnig slightly different so IMO it should also be called something different. "Suppression (of ideas)", perhaps? Something like that. But yeah, I agree: Let's not mention Kn***rd's name again.