7 ms·

Isn't it possible / even reasonable to assume that every now and again, a publisher will need to re-tool their printing operations to optimize for different thi

Isn't it possible / even reasonable to assume that every now and again, a publisher will need to re-tool their printing operations to optimize for different things? Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.

selfhoster11 4y ago
> Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? New copies must keep being made. Over time, the number of accidentally misplaced or damaged copies will reduce the numbers in circulation. > Are they obligated to continuously [retool and] produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Without question. If you appoint yourself as a gatekeeper of a piece of content, you better stay alert and willing to let people through the gate. Anything else amounts to culture hoarding or vandalism as people are denied the chance to participate in a shared experience. Access to affordable culture (all of it) is a right, not a privilege, especially when it’s so bloody cheap to duplicate. Don’t want the responsibility of granting people access in perpetuity? Let people duplicate the content freely. Pirates will do it without grumbling if you just let them.
Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Yes there is. And if you read the articles I listed, the motives for the retractions were made quite clear by the respective parties. In both cases, the removal of the work had nothing to do with market saturation. > Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me. I'm not arguing against an author's or publisher's rights to delist or even destroy a work. It's well within their rights their to do so any reason whatsoever. It doesn't take being worked up to make it clear that books are just as susceptible to creator/owner censorship as cartoons are or that authors can be fickle and hypocritical. What I take issue with is the philosophical reasoning behind the retraction.

selfhoster11 4y ago

> Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? New copies must keep being made. Over time, the number of accidentally misplaced or damaged copies will reduce the numbers in circulation. > Are they obligated to continuously [retool and] produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Without question. If you appoint yourself as a gatekeeper of a piece of content, you better stay alert and willing to let people through the gate. Anything else amounts to culture hoarding or vandalism as people are denied the chance to participate in a shared experience. Access to affordable culture (all of it) is a right, not a privilege, especially when it’s so bloody cheap to duplicate. Don’t want the responsibility of granting people access in perpetuity? Let people duplicate the content freely. Pirates will do it without grumbling if you just let them.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

> Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Yes there is. And if you read the articles I listed, the motives for the retractions were made quite clear by the respective parties. In both cases, the removal of the work had nothing to do with market saturation. > Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me. I'm not arguing against an author's or publisher's rights to delist or even destroy a work. It's well within their rights their to do so any reason whatsoever. It doesn't take being worked up to make it clear that books are just as susceptible to creator/owner censorship as cartoons are or that authors can be fickle and hypocritical. What I take issue with is the philosophical reasoning behind the retraction.