> Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / cance

> 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.