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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
> 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.
What sort of indoctrination are children going to go through by reading that a character is "enormous", instead of reading that the same character is "enormously fat"? Did you even see the list of changes?
You're proposing a conspiratorial idea to a scenario that has a way easier explanation.
Well , let's pretend for a moment that we're not all highly focused children's book authors.
* I don't know what those changes in the book will cause, I'm not the author who carefully and selectively chose his words -- neither are the people that have decided to change the selection. *
First of all, you neglect to realize that what you say is just the first round of changes. Once you allow it, it doesn't stop, ever.
First its enormous, then its tiny, then its something else. Before you know it, there's no relevance and its discarded as no longer culturally significant, and that's just the cultural identity portion of it (a shared mooring being removed).
Second, its not conspiratorial at all, there's actually a large body of vetted documentation in terms of the threats of political warfare dating back to the 1950s, and the more recent psychological blindspot research and manipulation which many of those threats and material choose to apply/target in some form to bypass critical thinking. This is what we are talking about when it comes to allowing an avenue for subversion and indoctrination into culturally significant works read primarily by children who have no defenses.
You have no idea how happy I would be to be wrong about this, but this is the real world, and letting these things happen is a recipe for disaster and an abandonment of generational contract responsibilities we have for our children.
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.
reply