That's somewhat of a surprising part, but @Os Trigonum has consistently been on the anti-censoring of any speech and he seems to believe that even if someone has the right to it, they shouldn't be able to stop publishing (if he believes it's based on weak sauces) because of his fear that that can lead to banning books (irrational fear IMO). Based on his posting history, he's not likely to explain his reasonings.
We WERE at some point touching on the issue of explanation versus justification. I do not believe the publisher has yet offered a satisfactory justification of taking these six titles out of circulation (and let's completely forget for the moment what ebay etc. is doing). The publisher is saying in effect we are removing these titles because they might offend someone. Period. That's pretty much the only explanation given. If anyone here wants to argue that that is a compelling reason to restrict access to a piece of intellectual property, have at it: I'm all ears. Consider the song "I Don't Like Mondays." The shooter upon whom the song is based used that statement ("I don't like Mondays") as an explanation for her actions. But by itself that statement/reason in no way, shape, or form constitutes anything even close to a JUSTIFICATION. Mondays may indeed offend, but that fact alone does not justify the actions of the shooter. The other point I'd make is that the links I've provided point folks here in the direction of a very real and very significant DISANALOGY between "intellectual property rights" and "real property rights." Many authors and scholars have argued that the very concept of intellectual property should be abandoned because of all the problematic aspects, both theoretical as well as practical, that the concept raises. There are any number of interesting and substantive issues we all could discuss if anyone of you wants to rise above the simple poo slinging of ad hominems. (and @txtony that last comment is not aimed at you, the poo slingers know who they are.)
The owner of the intellectual property decided to not put it out anymore. The creator of the intellectual property has said he was embarrassed by it and changed some of it when he was alive. I do agree with you that I wish all content was available. I don't like removing books no matter what they say. That being said, it isn't an author being cancelled by government, people in charge or anything of the sort. It is an action that seems in keeping with what the creator might want. In the words of XTC: ... I believe the printed word should be forgiven Doesn't matter what it said Wisdom hotline from the dead back to the living Key to the larder for your heart and head ... I believe the printed word is more than sacred Beyond the gauge of good or bad The human right to let your soul fly free and naked Above the violence of the fearful and sad... I also think given proper context it can be a great way to teach where we were as a society and the progress we've made. That being said people that own the intellectual property are free to do with it as they wish. That is especially true if it is in accordance with desire or philosophy of the creator. So while I might agree with you on not removing books because they have offensive images or words in them, this case is a horrible example to use in order to champion that cause.
I am saying if I own the rights to a book, I can pull it from publication if I choose to and I didn't sign my rights away.
yes, that is the exercise of your legal right, and you are legally entitled to do that. That is different than the claim that intellectual property rights are absolute. see roughly pp 28-30 in the Merges paper for why this matters
let us try a thought experiment: take a famous piece of beloved art, and suppose (simply for the sake of argument) that this art were in private hands and up for sale. Mona Lisa for example. The highest bidder for the painting decides to destroy the painting. It is his or her private property. Does the property right alone justify the property owner's choice to destroy the artwork? why or why not?
Yep...it is his to do with as he pleases as long as he doesn't break any laws doing so. Folks might think he is an ahole, but he is within his rights. Do you really want someone telling YOU what you can do with YOUR property?
I want to dump a 55 gallon drum of used motor oil into the pond on my property. Do I really want someone telling ME what I can do with MY property?
Yes. It’s their property. And it doesn’t bother me. Just don’t care in this Mona Lisa case. However, if there is sufficient social value, then it should never solely be their properly or that it’s declared to be a property with its own protection either as that of some social value or of the original artist intent. I think there are actual law that protect original intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
but surely this is not to suggest that the extent of one's indifference to a work of art is a measure of one's justification for destroying that work of art? this idea of "sufficient social value" is getting much closer to what really is at stake here. That while yes, the publisher and/or copyright holder has a rights claim to do as they wish within the limits of the law, society itself has a claim (a moral claim?) or a stake in the artwork as well. The idea of "moral rights" here is akin to the point about "sufficient social value" potentially generating a claim or stake upon a work that is in addition to the narrow legal rights of the "owner"
Was not suggesting that. Right of current owner vs social value vs artist intent. Social value and artist intent can be very different (I'm not talking about the law I referenced). For your Mona Lisa example, in practice, it's crazy for someone to buy a $1B work of art and destroy it. There probably doesn't need to be a law to protect against destroying very expensive non-controversial art. Or probably even slightly controversial art. But still, we seem to already have some protection. Let's look at another example, said a painting of the Prophet Muhammed. You can now clearly see a stark difference between social value (very negative or positive depending on the culture or religion) and artist intent (knowing how controversial it would be to make one). The current owner intends to destroy the painting against the artist's intent but for local social value (peace and harmony).... good luck with that one. As for this Dr. Seuss case.... No longer printing it doesn't destroy it and I can't see how it even impact social value (there are plenty of copies around), doesn't go against the artist intent (whatever that is, and for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter), or go against the current owner intention (obviously, and for whatever justification it also doesn't matter). This just isn't a good case about social value or artist intent to override or to insist on good justification.
all good points. I agree about the legal rights of a publisher to do whatever they see fit with their assets. On the other hand I think there is a strong argument to be made that publishers fill a social role and have a public responsibility to reflect/support social ideals when feasible. The very act of this particular publisher pulling these titles from circulation is itself a reflection of the publisher attempting to do just this: further societal values ("remove offensive material"), it's just I think the publisher gets it wrong in this instance. Again, "intellectual property" is modeled (for better or worse) on real property. The difference is that while real property can only be used by one or a few individuals at a time (example: the car that I own), intellectual property can in principle be used or enjoyed by hundreds or thousands or millions of people at the same time. This is an important way in which private individual property differs from a more public form of socially shared intellectual property. And intellectual property rights (e.g., copyright) were originally intended to protect the interests of an author in the sale of his or her own work. It was not a license in perpetuity for the copyright holder to restrict access to the work. This I take it is one reason why U.S. copyright law allows for the expiration of the copyright 70 years after an author's death (95 years if written under a pseudonym). I don't know enough about the history of this particular piece of regulation, but my intuitive inclination is to think these time periods are excessively long. But perhaps there was good reason for setting these time frames in the copyright law. on edit: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998
Is Dr. Seuss Enterprise a publisher? I thought they were just a private business that owns all rights to Dr. Suess work, merchandise, shows, etc, but not itself a publisher. I believe they no longer work with their publisher to publish these 6 books (someone might want to look up how much revenue they were getting from them and how much revenue they are getting now!) to further their branding, not because of any societal value (that was more PR than anything). A business is typically more concerned about themselves them their impact on society. Society, as I mentioned, should have a right to step in if there is sufficient impact on societal value (including damages). I just don't see much of an impact on values or damages here. Instead, I do see a danger of overriding the right of a private individual or company decisions to do what it thinks is in the best interest of itself. There needs to be clear justification of societal damages (or as I said, of going against the author's intent) to take such drastic steps. IP is an interesting topic (outdated now!) with so many new and different media forms and speed of technological breakthrough. It usually is meant to reward "innovation" and should probably be updated to continue incentivizing innovation but not to the point where is against societal benefit (think medicine or new technology that is too costly due to IP but has broad application). Print and artwork with ~70 years of IP protection is probably fine.
no, I believe they function as the actual publisher, Dr. Seuss Enterprises is a division of Random House Children’s Books and Penguin Random House. I think the timing is a bit odd. Forbes reports Seuss Enterprises doubling their income over the past couple of years with a new CEO and a number of big ticket film deals. At $33 million/year Seuss is #2 on the list of 'dead celebrity income': https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddie...aid-dead-celebrities-of-2020/?sh=e8a230b3b4b1
There are roughly 60 Dr. Seuss books and they decided to stop printing 6 of the books. The decision was made by the Seuss family, who control the rights to the work. The priceless art example doesn’t hold, they are not destroying the original and there are many of the books in circulation. This isn’t book burning, this isn’t destruction of art work. This is the organization that controls the right to Dr. Seuss making a decision that 6 of the books are no longer proper for little children because in 2021 they are viewed as offensive. Those against the decision really are not happy with the modern values of 2021. That is fine, I still remember by mother telling me that when she was a child her grandfather used the term ****** to describe any black person. He was not a big fan when it was replaced by black. He said the term ****** had been good enough for a hundred years so why change it now.” Things change with time.
