7 ms·

This is after they announced a separate release of non-bowdlerized versions. So extant purchasers who wish to have e-book versions of the original need to buy t

by prvc 4y ago

This is after they announced a separate release of non-bowdlerized versions. So extant purchasers who wish to have e-book versions of the original need to buy them a second time. Had they just released the modified versions as a separate edition this would have been unnecessary. In view of this timeline of events, increasing revenue seems to be the motive here, and the publishers seem to now be implicated in some kind of deceptive business practice such as bait and switch or worse.

gorwell 4y ago
[flagged]
- than3 4y ago
  Its actually must worse, that's a very surface view. This is subversive political warfare. They are retroactively editing history, and no copyright grant should ever allow you to do that or to damage property that you have already legitimately paid for, especially without consent. Its a violent subversive attack on ideological aspects of people's culture, lives, and property rights. Honestly, they should have the copyright immediately revoked if they start pushing ideological or subversive edits into classic works. Make a clear statement that you only get these granted protections if you play by the cultures rules, and corruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
  - jonny_eh 4y ago
    Now do Star Wars Special Editions.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
      I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a clever counter point because no one was happy with that either. But at least it was the creator themselves editing their own works. And Lucas didn’t reach into your DVD collection and stop you watching the originals. It was just a new edition.
      - jonny_eh 4y ago
        > But at least it was the creator themselves editing their own works Original author vs rights holder, doesn't matter to me. Once art is released, it belongs to the public. The rights holders are entitled to make money from it at least. > It was just a new edition. Considering that the best quality release of the non-special editions is a Laserdisc, it's basically as good as deleting the originals from history.
        2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
        That’s a bit entitled. If I make something, I get to modifying it as much as I like as the creator, if I change my mind. Maybe my changes suck. But that’s not my problem as the creator. Complaining about format is also a bit silly. No one has to continuously release things you like in the format you choose. Loads of things are out of print. That’s just the nature of technology. And in this day and age, there’s a torrent.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    Calling it violent is a poor way to get people to see your side. Makes me want to disagree with you when I agree with everything else you've said. I question if you've ever seen real violence if you're willing to write that
    - than3 4y ago
      > Calling it violent is a poor way to get people to see your side. We will have to disagree. I call it like I see it. Its an insidious but violent attack on shared cultural experiences. You either defend your culture and way of life or you don't, and recognition of the attack for what it is, is absolutely necessary to come to that understanding. Some of us operate on a larger world view and time horizon and know just how much darkness is out there, and the insidious ways it creeps in. Moreso than others who would snipe at word usage for something as serious as this. Let me ask you, do you think these changes will impact you personally if you are late in your adult life? No? Who do you think they will impact the most and how? Who is the target audience of those books... its children who have no previous experience of the stories, or world experience to compare against, who often read these books prior to the age of reason or shortly after. Children who through social intelligence absorb what they read and experience like a sponge, and then imitate. In other words they read these at the point before or at which they can only just begin to biologically think critically, and tell and detect lies. So why would you go through the expense of doing these things, it certainly isn't to align with a minority groups temporary message that will burn out in a few years. So why would you do this... nothing productive or good comes to mind except to alter a future generations ideology for some intended private purpose. Its taking classic works, changing them to a slightly different message, and then calling them the same thing (when the original message is lost). Its a fundamental act of corruption of a shared cultural medium, which when internalized and permanent becomes a part of people's identity, or if it constantly changes does not. What could they gain from indoctrinating millions of children who might even be required to read these books in their public education classes at an age where they can't recognize the harms of internalizing aspects? What happens to people psychologically when you have no shared cultural mores or folkways. Do you think they develop to become well adjusted individuals? or does the civilization inevitably start to tear itself apart, jumping at shadows and perceived slights. I can't think of a more serious matter with the stakes higher. If you aren't willing to defend what's important (i.e. your future) it calls into question deep issues of why you do anything, or shouldn't do anything. You might end up with something like Brave New World, if we survive at all. Businesses have no right to interfere with children's development, and this change would do just that in a un-quantifiable way. Its an unprofitable choice, so there's clearly some alternative motive to justify the cost. The firm should only have profit motive, what profit motive could justify the expenses for these changes.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>This is after they announced a separate release of non-bowdlerized versions. That's not clear. The person quoted as having it happen to them posted that it happened the same day as the announcement of the non-bowdlerized versions, and the linked article was also published that day.
- turbostyler 4y ago
  Does it really matter which came first? It doesn’t change the possible intent.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Yes? The publisher's intent changed when they decided to publish both copies. If they are unwilling to revert the change they pushed out, the op's claim of it being a money grab might be accurate.
Nifty3929 4y ago
No, the motive is ideology, not money. This way ensures almost universal replacement. The default user action is null. If they had the new one released separately, nobody would have purchased it. By replacing the old one, few will buy the original. The bleaching will be much more complete this way.
- prvc 4y ago
  >If they had the new one released separately, nobody would have purchased it. This is true, and they wouldn't have wanted to do that, not least because it would reflect poorly on the changes, but this would have been an alternative honest way to have released the new editions had they wished to, in contrast to what they actually did.
- throw009 4y ago
  >No, the motive is ideology, not money. Not any more. The True Believers of Wokeness^tm are now completely sidelined and we're in the feeding frenzy stage of the fad. Wizards of the Coast cash grab for D&D was the first time that I was someone _completely_ transparently trying to fleece their customers while being draped in a rainbow.
  - abeyer 4y ago
    Weren't WotC blatant cash grabbers well before D&D or draping? Didn't really seem related in their case.
    - vkou 4y ago
      They were, but it's now hip to blame 'wokeness' for the horse bolting out the barndoor, the milk going bad, and other similar calamities, like rains of frogs, poor stock performance relative to the S&P500, and so on, and so forth.
      - throw009 4y ago
        >When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-g... In their own words. Wokeness has reached its due by date. The great washed masses need to find something else to colonize and destroy now.

by prvc 4y ago

gorwell 4y ago

[flagged]

than3 4y ago
Its actually must worse, that's a very surface view. This is subversive political warfare. They are retroactively editing history, and no copyright grant should ever allow you to do that or to damage property that you have already legitimately paid for, especially without consent. Its a violent subversive attack on ideological aspects of people's culture, lives, and property rights. Honestly, they should have the copyright immediately revoked if they start pushing ideological or subversive edits into classic works. Make a clear statement that you only get these granted protections if you play by the cultures rules, and corruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  Now do Star Wars Special Editions.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a clever counter point because no one was happy with that either. But at least it was the creator themselves editing their own works. And Lucas didn’t reach into your DVD collection and stop you watching the originals. It was just a new edition.
    - jonny_eh 4y ago
      > But at least it was the creator themselves editing their own works Original author vs rights holder, doesn't matter to me. Once art is released, it belongs to the public. The rights holders are entitled to make money from it at least. > It was just a new edition. Considering that the best quality release of the non-special editions is a Laserdisc, it's basically as good as deleting the originals from history.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
        That’s a bit entitled. If I make something, I get to modifying it as much as I like as the creator, if I change my mind. Maybe my changes suck. But that’s not my problem as the creator. Complaining about format is also a bit silly. No one has to continuously release things you like in the format you choose. Loads of things are out of print. That’s just the nature of technology. And in this day and age, there’s a torrent.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Calling it violent is a poor way to get people to see your side. Makes me want to disagree with you when I agree with everything else you've said. I question if you've ever seen real violence if you're willing to write that
  - than3 4y ago
    > Calling it violent is a poor way to get people to see your side. We will have to disagree. I call it like I see it. Its an insidious but violent attack on shared cultural experiences. You either defend your culture and way of life or you don't, and recognition of the attack for what it is, is absolutely necessary to come to that understanding. Some of us operate on a larger world view and time horizon and know just how much darkness is out there, and the insidious ways it creeps in. Moreso than others who would snipe at word usage for something as serious as this. Let me ask you, do you think these changes will impact you personally if you are late in your adult life? No? Who do you think they will impact the most and how? Who is the target audience of those books... its children who have no previous experience of the stories, or world experience to compare against, who often read these books prior to the age of reason or shortly after. Children who through social intelligence absorb what they read and experience like a sponge, and then imitate. In other words they read these at the point before or at which they can only just begin to biologically think critically, and tell and detect lies. So why would you go through the expense of doing these things, it certainly isn't to align with a minority groups temporary message that will burn out in a few years. So why would you do this... nothing productive or good comes to mind except to alter a future generations ideology for some intended private purpose. Its taking classic works, changing them to a slightly different message, and then calling them the same thing (when the original message is lost). Its a fundamental act of corruption of a shared cultural medium, which when internalized and permanent becomes a part of people's identity, or if it constantly changes does not. What could they gain from indoctrinating millions of children who might even be required to read these books in their public education classes at an age where they can't recognize the harms of internalizing aspects? What happens to people psychologically when you have no shared cultural mores or folkways. Do you think they develop to become well adjusted individuals? or does the civilization inevitably start to tear itself apart, jumping at shadows and perceived slights. I can't think of a more serious matter with the stakes higher. If you aren't willing to defend what's important (i.e. your future) it calls into question deep issues of why you do anything, or shouldn't do anything. You might end up with something like Brave New World, if we survive at all. Businesses have no right to interfere with children's development, and this change would do just that in a un-quantifiable way. Its an unprofitable choice, so there's clearly some alternative motive to justify the cost. The firm should only have profit motive, what profit motive could justify the expenses for these changes.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>This is after they announced a separate release of non-bowdlerized versions. That's not clear. The person quoted as having it happen to them posted that it happened the same day as the announcement of the non-bowdlerized versions, and the linked article was also published that day.

turbostyler 4y ago
Does it really matter which came first? It doesn’t change the possible intent.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Yes? The publisher's intent changed when they decided to publish both copies. If they are unwilling to revert the change they pushed out, the op's claim of it being a money grab might be accurate.

Nifty3929 4y ago

No, the motive is ideology, not money. This way ensures almost universal replacement. The default user action is null. If they had the new one released separately, nobody would have purchased it. By replacing the old one, few will buy the original. The bleaching will be much more complete this way.

prvc 4y ago
>If they had the new one released separately, nobody would have purchased it. This is true, and they wouldn't have wanted to do that, not least because it would reflect poorly on the changes, but this would have been an alternative honest way to have released the new editions had they wished to, in contrast to what they actually did.
throw009 4y ago
>No, the motive is ideology, not money. Not any more. The True Believers of Wokeness^tm are now completely sidelined and we're in the feeding frenzy stage of the fad. Wizards of the Coast cash grab for D&D was the first time that I was someone _completely_ transparently trying to fleece their customers while being draped in a rainbow.
- abeyer 4y ago
  Weren't WotC blatant cash grabbers well before D&D or draping? Didn't really seem related in their case.
  - vkou 4y ago
    They were, but it's now hip to blame 'wokeness' for the horse bolting out the barndoor, the milk going bad, and other similar calamities, like rains of frogs, poor stock performance relative to the S&P500, and so on, and so forth.
    - throw009 4y ago
      >When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-g... In their own words. Wokeness has reached its due by date. The great washed masses need to find something else to colonize and destroy now.