4 ms·
What is your argument then? That every edit by anyone demanding changes should be done? That's not a good game to play. I can see how slaves might be offensive
by onetimeusename 4y ago
What is your argument then? That every edit by anyone demanding changes should be done? That's not a good game to play.
I can see how slaves might be offensive to people and be changed by the author but for example no one was offended by the word "screeching" and if they were I don't think we should let those people choose which words a book uses.
- pgodzin 4y agoBut shouldn't we allow the rights holders to change things that they consider haven't aged well to allow broader appeal? Should they be required to publish the same version that they disagree with in perpetuity?
- onetimeusename 4y agoI am fine with rights holders being allowed to change it (copyright is a different issue) but I am criticizing the reasoning.
- pavlov 4y agoWhen a work is old enough to have aged poorly, it should be in the public domain, and then everyone could publish and read the version they prefer. Some of those might be more interesting and popular than the original. Copyright that persists long after the death of the author makes no sense to society at large. It’s just another form of rent-seeking capitalism.