4 ms·

There are claims this is untrue but even if it’s true it’sa non-story and nothing new. Famously there’s Star Wars (as the article mentions) but there are plenty

by jmyeet 4y ago

There are claims this is untrue but even if it’s true it’sa non-story and nothing new. Famously there’s Star Wars (as the article mentions) but there are plenty of others. TV shows and movies have removed episodes from circulation (eg Seinfeld), removed scenes (eg 13 Reasons Why), added scenes (pick any Director’s Cut), enhanced scenes, enhanced or changed audio, etc. Content as originally published isn’t untouchable. It’s only really a problem when the changes are bad. I mean fans of Star Wars have been clamoring for a release of the original theatrical version for 25+ years in large part because the changes are worse.

salawat 4y ago
Published ceases tomean anything if everyone is treating everything as "in production". The point of Publishing is to render an immutable artifact fit for replication and mass distribution.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  I think the point of publishing is mass distribution. The fact that it resulted in an immutable artifact and replication is just an outcome of the available technology. Not to mention this happens all the time for "immutable artifacts". I bought a copy of the original "Shrek" book only to find it was massively different from the original and edited down to be more kid friendly. I'm sure there is some way to distinguish it by copyright date or ISBN number if you already have the knowledge the edit exists, but if most consumers don't know is it not basically the same result of memory-holing the original work as time goes on?
  - salawat 4y ago
    It is not specifically because things like ISBN exist to allow us to differentiate between different publications ( instance of publishing) of the same title. Pretty much all institutional publishing is centered around cuts of a produced work getting a serial number. This mechanism by which further edits on a work happen without being tracked is a grave threat to library science/archival practice. Our very way of organizing information in a way that lets us keep our facts straight as a public is at stake. It should be obvious why this is a bad thing.

by jmyeet 4y ago

salawat 4y ago

Published ceases tomean anything if everyone is treating everything as "in production". The point of Publishing is to render an immutable artifact fit for replication and mass distribution.

enragedcacti 4y ago
I think the point of publishing is mass distribution. The fact that it resulted in an immutable artifact and replication is just an outcome of the available technology. Not to mention this happens all the time for "immutable artifacts". I bought a copy of the original "Shrek" book only to find it was massively different from the original and edited down to be more kid friendly. I'm sure there is some way to distinguish it by copyright date or ISBN number if you already have the knowledge the edit exists, but if most consumers don't know is it not basically the same result of memory-holing the original work as time goes on?
- salawat 4y ago
  It is not specifically because things like ISBN exist to allow us to differentiate between different publications ( instance of publishing) of the same title. Pretty much all institutional publishing is centered around cuts of a produced work getting a serial number. This mechanism by which further edits on a work happen without being tracked is a grave threat to library science/archival practice. Our very way of organizing information in a way that lets us keep our facts straight as a public is at stake. It should be obvious why this is a bad thing.