6 ms·

There's a bit to this The copyright OWNERS are to be denied their rights to do with their property what they wish? Further, they're forced to print some versi

There's a bit to this The copyright OWNERS are to be denied their rights to do with their property what they wish? Further, they're forced to print some version of their property? Honestly, no, books go in and out of print all day long, and first editions have always been 'collectible' because they're 'original' Changes/edits happen all the time (hell some authors keep web pages of errata because their originals require updating), just that the edits in question have people clutching their pearls.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
The obvious answer to this: don't let people own history. Copyright shouldn't extend such an absurdly long time as to affect most of these books.
- awesome_dude 3y ago
  Whilst I agree that copyright is absurdly long - changing that isn't going to prevent people from creating updates that suit their whims (look at the Winnie the Pooh (original) cartoons people are able to create because that fell out of copyright recently. It's made zero difference to the original (which has been out of print for decades)
Georgelemental 3y ago
> The copyright OWNERS are to be denied their rights to do with their property what they wish? Yes. The purpose of copyright is to protect and promote cultural works, that's why governments instituted it. If the institution is no longer serving its purpose, it should be reformed
- bitwize 3y ago
  I don't mean to contribute to Alyssa Rosenzweig's observed toxic techbrosplaining and 'um, actually'ing here on Hackernews but, um, actually... In the UK the purpose of copyright was originally to give the King's approved publishers a monopoly on published material. The copyright was literally a right to copy, to operate a printing press. Even today, in France copyright is seen as a droit d'auteur, a moral right to a work you have simply by being the author of the work. Forget promoting cultural works for the public's benefit. As the author you are entitled even to determine who may even see the work, and how they may see it. You can go full Prince and lock your magnum opus in a vault, that is a right that is legally and morally respected. It's only in the USA where the justification of copyright is to "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts", and so we feel entitled to other people's work.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    I understand, even agree with, the "droit d'auteur" view, when there is a single primary author (or small group) that is still alive and holds the rights. But not for megacorp publishing houses, or the spoiled grandchildren of a long-dead author.
bitwize 3y ago
Nice bit of so-what-you're-saying-is-ism. I'm not saying the copyright owners are to be denied anything, only that it's a crying shame they're doing what they're doing. They are within their rights to do so, and given that just about all public companies have ESG rules they need to adhere to, there may not have been a realistic alternative. It's a crying shame that George Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney, who proceeded to dismantle the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises. It's a crying shame that after the failure of the Amico, the current rightsholders to Intellivision are selling off their game IPs piecemeal, preventing another collection like Intellivision Lives from happening. But everyone involved in these actions is acting within their rights to the IP in question.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

The obvious answer to this: don't let people own history. Copyright shouldn't extend such an absurdly long time as to affect most of these books.

awesome_dude 3y ago
Whilst I agree that copyright is absurdly long - changing that isn't going to prevent people from creating updates that suit their whims (look at the Winnie the Pooh (original) cartoons people are able to create because that fell out of copyright recently. It's made zero difference to the original (which has been out of print for decades)

Georgelemental 3y ago

> The copyright OWNERS are to be denied their rights to do with their property what they wish? Yes. The purpose of copyright is to protect and promote cultural works, that's why governments instituted it. If the institution is no longer serving its purpose, it should be reformed

bitwize 3y ago
I don't mean to contribute to Alyssa Rosenzweig's observed toxic techbrosplaining and 'um, actually'ing here on Hackernews but, um, actually... In the UK the purpose of copyright was originally to give the King's approved publishers a monopoly on published material. The copyright was literally a right to copy, to operate a printing press. Even today, in France copyright is seen as a droit d'auteur, a moral right to a work you have simply by being the author of the work. Forget promoting cultural works for the public's benefit. As the author you are entitled even to determine who may even see the work, and how they may see it. You can go full Prince and lock your magnum opus in a vault, that is a right that is legally and morally respected. It's only in the USA where the justification of copyright is to "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts", and so we feel entitled to other people's work.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  I understand, even agree with, the "droit d'auteur" view, when there is a single primary author (or small group) that is still alive and holds the rights. But not for megacorp publishing houses, or the spoiled grandchildren of a long-dead author.

bitwize 3y ago

Nice bit of so-what-you're-saying-is-ism. I'm not saying the copyright owners are to be denied anything, only that it's a crying shame they're doing what they're doing. They are within their rights to do so, and given that just about all public companies have ESG rules they need to adhere to, there may not have been a realistic alternative. It's a crying shame that George Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney, who proceeded to dismantle the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises. It's a crying shame that after the failure of the Amico, the current rightsholders to Intellivision are selling off their game IPs piecemeal, preventing another collection like Intellivision Lives from happening. But everyone involved in these actions is acting within their rights to the IP in question.