5 ms·

Its actually must worse, that's a very surface view. This is subversive political warfare. They are retroactively editing history, and no copyright grant shoul

by 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.

by than3 4y ago

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.