5 ms·

Except it's never a faceless authoritarian committee in practice. It's one of two things: The copyright holders are publishing new editions edited to modern s

Except it's never a faceless authoritarian committee in practice. It's one of two things: The copyright holders are publishing new editions edited to modern sensibilities to maximize their profits by selling to a new audience. The works are in the public domain, in which case anyone can edit up a new edition however they like, for fun or profit. What's the alternative? We take away the right of copyright holders to publish new editions of their IP? We disallow people to edit works in the public domain?

domador 3y ago
An alternative: allow copyright holders to publish new editions but only if they 1) clearly label them as new, edited versions that are not the original and 2) make the unedited originals fully and completely available upon request, for a (truly) reasonable fee to anyone who requests access to them for whatever reason. If these conditions aren't met within a reasonable timeframe, then (by law) the original version would automatically become fully (or partially) public domain. ("Partial" public domain would mean than anyone could make or distribute copies of the original version. The copyright holders would temporarily retain the exclusive right to make edited versions, until the work fully becomes public domain when the standard copyright term lapses. At that point anyone could make and distribute the original version or their own, edited versions.)
- saalweachter 3y ago
  So should Bill Nye be required to keep publishing the original version of his book "Undeniable"? [Between the publication of the hardcover and softcover editions, he changed his views on GMO foods, and updated the relevant chapter.]
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    Perhaps as an on-demand title. Add a foreword if he'd like, but yeah.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > So should Bill Nye be required to keep publishing the original version of his book "Undeniable"? [Between the publication of the hardcover and softcover editions, he changed his views on GMO foods, and updated the relevant chapter.] Ideally, yes, but at a minimum he should provide a list of changes and their rationale(s) in the newer editions.
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    If he changed his views and then edited his book to only show his new viewpoint then absolutely yes. If he edited his book to rebut his own argument and lays out the case then maybe not but it should be stated in the forward that the change was made. We are moving forward into a time where media is only digital and can be changed at will, it is important to establish a system where when we make changes we record them and also why we made the changes. If we do not, the only future is one where information is as ethereal as the morning dew and subject to the zeitgeist of the times.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > [Between the publication of the hardcover and softcover editions, he changed his views on GMO foods, and updated the relevant chapter.] In other words, the diff between editions may be even more interesting than the either edition by itself.
  - FalconSensei 3y ago
    Key word here is that HE changed his mind and updated the chapter. If someone else changes the text on a book from a dead author... how do you know the author would have liked that? I remember a while ago I was reading on a stage play that's supposed to be only 4~5 men (no women on the play), and the - now dead writer - specified that this should never be changed. And some ppl try to do women-only, or mixed cast, and then the writer's estate sues and tries to intervene...
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      I honestly expected many more people to push back on this point, and not jump whole-heartedly to the extreme that even the original author should not be allowed to change a work once published. The only real counter-argument I can make to the position that the author can edit his works but his heirs cannot is that the author chooses his heirs; the author could have instead chosen to will his works into the public domain after his death, or establish a trust or foundation with a strict mandate to republish his works in their original form while returning the profits to his heirs. It's not a particularly strong argument -- many authors may not have the resources or foresight to make such provisions, and you could just as easily insist on authors who do wish their heirs to manage their works and not simply profit from them make explicit declarations on that point -- which is why I lead with the more extreme case of an author editing his own work.
      - FalconSensei 3y ago
        I'm not sure why you are replying to me, and not the person that said that authors can't update their own work?
        saalweachter 3y ago
        If someone thinks that authors shouldn't be allowed to update their own works, it's a bizarre position to me, but they've already accepted it, so I'm not sure what rhetoric to use to discuss it further. I can at least talk to you about whether it's reasonable for eg Brian Herbert or (the now-late) Christopher Tolkien to continue to exercise editorial control over their fathers' works, or under what conditions a foundation could be established for the duration of the 90-years-post-author-death copyright the US currently uses. If it's permissible for Dr Seuss's widow to inherit editorial control of her husband's work along with the copyright, can she pass that control to Dr Seuss Enterprises; if not, could Dr Seuss have established it before his death? (Personally I think the other reply was better, in stating that it is arrogant to assume that the author's heirs do not know his wishes better than us.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tivert 3y ago
>> That's far different than an anonymous committee quietly revising past works to conform to the current political line. > Except it's never a faceless ... committee in practice. > It's one of two things: > The copyright holders are publishing new editions edited to modern sensibilities to maximize their profits by selling to a new audience. Except that's exactly a "faceless ... committee in practice" (I elided out your injection of "authoritarian," because it missed the point). Then the marketplaces ban the resale of old editions: https://www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824 https://www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-.... And due to copyright, they have the power to effectively suppress older editions. There will be no easy way to get your hands on one other than figuring out when the changes was made (which likely wasn't publicized), then tracking down a tattered old copy on ebay. > The works are in the public domain, in which case anyone can edit up a new edition however they like, for fun or profit. That's not as concerning, because if the original version is public domain, it will remain easily available and bowdlerized versions are unlikely to be able to compete.
NoRelToEmber 3y ago
This is an extremely common type of reply: Refusing to condemn something as wrong, on the basis that it's hard to write a good law that would fix it. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten [1], every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. [1] But originals are still kept in archives, and available upon request, so it's okay! Only a negligible number of people will bother so they may as well not exist, but it's okay!
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > But originals are still kept in archives, and available upon request, so it's okay! You'd wish. In reality, custodians of each archive assumed that there are still copies in the other archives, and trashed most of the works to save money, without realizing the other archives were doing the same thing to those same works.
xg15 3y ago
"The copyright holders" may very well be a faceless committee instead of the original author (or estate), i.e. if some megacorp had bought the copyright and us the force behind the republishing.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  I mean, that's what happens when you make copyright extend to 90 years past the death of the author. They and everyone they know dies, and the copyright still exists, and eventually it's a committee. But it's all different committees. There's no Grand Woke High Committee dictating these changes to these works from the shadows. It's just capitalism, copyright law, and market forces. Dr Seuss Enterprises is a private for-profit foundation established by the author's widow before her death, and while it's probably run by some sort of committee, it's a completely different committee than the board of directors at Netflix, and whatever VP heads up the Roald Dahl Story Company after its acquisition (I assume from the family, who were speaking for the company as recently as 2020). So do we not allow the author or the author's family to set up foundations or sell their work to a corporation for half a billion dollars?
  - xg15 3y ago
    Good points. Though I think the dynamics by which DEI dos and donts propagate should probably be explained better, because apparently they do invite the image of some shadowy committee. I suppose groupthink is a more likely explanation though.

domador 3y ago

An alternative: allow copyright holders to publish new editions but only if they 1) clearly label them as new, edited versions that are not the original and 2) make the unedited originals fully and completely available upon request, for a (truly) reasonable fee to anyone who requests access to them for whatever reason. If these conditions aren't met within a reasonable timeframe, then (by law) the original version would automatically become fully (or partially) public domain. ("Partial" public domain would mean than anyone could make or distribute copies of the original version. The copyright holders would temporarily retain the exclusive right to make edited versions, until the work fully becomes public domain when the standard copyright term lapses. At that point anyone could make and distribute the original version or their own, edited versions.)

saalweachter 3y ago
So should Bill Nye be required to keep publishing the original version of his book "Undeniable"? [Between the publication of the hardcover and softcover editions, he changed his views on GMO foods, and updated the relevant chapter.]
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  Perhaps as an on-demand title. Add a foreword if he'd like, but yeah.
- tivert 3y ago
  > So should Bill Nye be required to keep publishing the original version of his book "Undeniable"? [Between the publication of the hardcover and softcover editions, he changed his views on GMO foods, and updated the relevant chapter.] Ideally, yes, but at a minimum he should provide a list of changes and their rationale(s) in the newer editions.
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  If he changed his views and then edited his book to only show his new viewpoint then absolutely yes. If he edited his book to rebut his own argument and lays out the case then maybe not but it should be stated in the forward that the change was made. We are moving forward into a time where media is only digital and can be changed at will, it is important to establish a system where when we make changes we record them and also why we made the changes. If we do not, the only future is one where information is as ethereal as the morning dew and subject to the zeitgeist of the times.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > [Between the publication of the hardcover and softcover editions, he changed his views on GMO foods, and updated the relevant chapter.] In other words, the diff between editions may be even more interesting than the either edition by itself.
- FalconSensei 3y ago
  Key word here is that HE changed his mind and updated the chapter. If someone else changes the text on a book from a dead author... how do you know the author would have liked that? I remember a while ago I was reading on a stage play that's supposed to be only 4~5 men (no women on the play), and the - now dead writer - specified that this should never be changed. And some ppl try to do women-only, or mixed cast, and then the writer's estate sues and tries to intervene...
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    I honestly expected many more people to push back on this point, and not jump whole-heartedly to the extreme that even the original author should not be allowed to change a work once published. The only real counter-argument I can make to the position that the author can edit his works but his heirs cannot is that the author chooses his heirs; the author could have instead chosen to will his works into the public domain after his death, or establish a trust or foundation with a strict mandate to republish his works in their original form while returning the profits to his heirs. It's not a particularly strong argument -- many authors may not have the resources or foresight to make such provisions, and you could just as easily insist on authors who do wish their heirs to manage their works and not simply profit from them make explicit declarations on that point -- which is why I lead with the more extreme case of an author editing his own work.
    - FalconSensei 3y ago
      I'm not sure why you are replying to me, and not the person that said that authors can't update their own work?
      - saalweachter 3y ago
        If someone thinks that authors shouldn't be allowed to update their own works, it's a bizarre position to me, but they've already accepted it, so I'm not sure what rhetoric to use to discuss it further. I can at least talk to you about whether it's reasonable for eg Brian Herbert or (the now-late) Christopher Tolkien to continue to exercise editorial control over their fathers' works, or under what conditions a foundation could be established for the duration of the 90-years-post-author-death copyright the US currently uses. If it's permissible for Dr Seuss's widow to inherit editorial control of her husband's work along with the copyright, can she pass that control to Dr Seuss Enterprises; if not, could Dr Seuss have established it before his death? (Personally I think the other reply was better, in stating that it is arrogant to assume that the author's heirs do not know his wishes better than us.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tivert 3y ago

>> That's far different than an anonymous committee quietly revising past works to conform to the current political line. > Except it's never a faceless ... committee in practice. > It's one of two things: > The copyright holders are publishing new editions edited to modern sensibilities to maximize their profits by selling to a new audience. Except that's exactly a "faceless ... committee in practice" (I elided out your injection of "authoritarian," because it missed the point). Then the marketplaces ban the resale of old editions: https://www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824 https://www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-.... And due to copyright, they have the power to effectively suppress older editions. There will be no easy way to get your hands on one other than figuring out when the changes was made (which likely wasn't publicized), then tracking down a tattered old copy on ebay. > The works are in the public domain, in which case anyone can edit up a new edition however they like, for fun or profit. That's not as concerning, because if the original version is public domain, it will remain easily available and bowdlerized versions are unlikely to be able to compete.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago

This is an extremely common type of reply: Refusing to condemn something as wrong, on the basis that it's hard to write a good law that would fix it. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten [1], every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. [1] But originals are still kept in archives, and available upon request, so it's okay! Only a negligible number of people will bother so they may as well not exist, but it's okay!

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> But originals are still kept in archives, and available upon request, so it's okay! You'd wish. In reality, custodians of each archive assumed that there are still copies in the other archives, and trashed most of the works to save money, without realizing the other archives were doing the same thing to those same works.

xg15 3y ago

"The copyright holders" may very well be a faceless committee instead of the original author (or estate), i.e. if some megacorp had bought the copyright and us the force behind the republishing.

saalweachter 3y ago
I mean, that's what happens when you make copyright extend to 90 years past the death of the author. They and everyone they know dies, and the copyright still exists, and eventually it's a committee. But it's all different committees. There's no Grand Woke High Committee dictating these changes to these works from the shadows. It's just capitalism, copyright law, and market forces. Dr Seuss Enterprises is a private for-profit foundation established by the author's widow before her death, and while it's probably run by some sort of committee, it's a completely different committee than the board of directors at Netflix, and whatever VP heads up the Roald Dahl Story Company after its acquisition (I assume from the family, who were speaking for the company as recently as 2020). So do we not allow the author or the author's family to set up foundations or sell their work to a corporation for half a billion dollars?
- xg15 3y ago
  Good points. Though I think the dynamics by which DEI dos and donts propagate should probably be explained better, because apparently they do invite the image of some shadowy committee. I suppose groupthink is a more likely explanation though.