1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Philosophy of copyright and libertarian arguments against intellectual property

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Mar 7, 2021.

Page 1 of 5
  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,948
    Likes Received:
    111,147
    The Dr. Seuss thing has gotten me interested in the entire debate (wasn't even aware there was a debate) about copyright laws and the concept of "intellectual property." The original thread has just a little too much extraneous stuff going on with sub-texts of racism, offense, Republicans politics, "talking points," and the like, so I thought I'd try a separate thread and try to isolate more fundamental questions about ownership and the idea of "public domain" and the public good.

    Here's a couple of links for starters with excerpts from each.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_copyright

    . . . there are also some who continue to agree with copyright as a way to grant authors rights, but feel that it "outlives its welcome" by granting copyright for too long (e.g., far beyond the lifetime of the author), and is therefore of little direct benefit to him or her. The prolongation of copyright term is commonly attributed to effective corporate lobbying, based on a desire for the continuance of a profitable monopoly. In the US, this is often phrased as a conspiracy to 'control the Mouse' (meaning Mickey Mouse, a trademarked character controlled by the Disney Company whose early works would have moved into the public domain save for such an extension).

    To many critics, the general problem is that the current (international) copyright system undermines its own goal.[8] The concepts of the public domain and the intrinsic freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be able to build on published expression. But these are gradually being eroded, as copyright terms are repeatedly extended to last beyond the lifetime of the audience which experienced and knows of the original work.

    Another effect of the repeated extension of copyright term is that current authors are shielded from competition from a wide public domain: by the time current works enter the public domain, they will almost always have become obsolete. This reduces the risk of commoditization of topical non-fiction. Out-of-copyright publishing, such as classic literature where margins are very low, generally offers only the best of each genre.[9][10]​

    Against intellectual property,

    Roderick T. Long argues that the concept of intellectual property is not libertarian. He holds that prohibiting people from using, reproducing and trading copyrighted material is an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of the press and that since information exists in people's minds and other people's property one cannot own information without owning other people. Claiming that authors and publishers will continue to produce absent copyright protection, he cites the fact that hundreds of thousands of articles are uploaded onto the Internet by their authors every day, available to anyone in the world for free and that nearly all works written before the 20th century are in the public domain, yet pre-1900 works are still published and sold.
    ​
    The original thread turned normally left-leaning posters (some of them anyway) into stalwart defenders of inviolable and sacrosanct property rights--including the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.

    Whereas a more liberal perspective, in contrast, would seek to achieve maximum freedom on behalf of those citizens seeking to make their own decisions about their use of copyrighted material.

    So I'm interested in hearing peoples' thinking on whether copyright itself is a problem, particularly in digital age when so much information is available and so easily shared; and when the legitimate public interest in free and easy access to the "public domain" has been gradually eroded by the repeated extensions of copyright terms as reflected in the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act.
     
    #1 Os Trigonum, Mar 7, 2021
  2. Haymitch

    Haymitch Custom Title
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    28,003
    Likes Received:
    23,206
    #2 Haymitch, Mar 7, 2021
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  3. TimDuncanDonaut

    TimDuncanDonaut Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,435
    Likes Received:
    31,317
    There are pros and cons to copyright. The pros, I think many people know already. For the cons you have characters like Micky Mouse who should be in the public domain, but Disney (and its lobbying); somehow make themselves an exemption. Imagine if Mozart's music is still copyrighted. At some point, the greed outweighs general public good.

    At the extreme, you also have Software patent trolls or Lebron's failed attempt at Taco Tuesdays; which wasn't even his original idea.

    If things like the Linux operating system was proprietary it never would have been so widely adopted. (Android, Playstation, Rasberry Pis, many IoTs). Of the many open source licenses; there's copyLEFT license.

    And then there's guys like Daisuke Inoue, the inventor of karaoke. "He did not patent the machine because he wanted to 'teach the world to sing'. He earned nothing from the billion dollar industry his invention has spawned and has no regrets."
     
    #3 TimDuncanDonaut, Mar 7, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2021
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  4. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    54,232
    Likes Received:
    42,233
    I don't really know what the issue is here. Currently Theodore Geissel's works are still under copyright so as such the books in question publication or lack of is under the control of his heirs. Even if they weren't under copyright a publication company choosing not to publish them still wouldn't be an issue of censorship as what a publishing company decides to publish or not is up to them. The argument would be like saying if a music publication house decided not to publish the sheet music to "Happy Birthday" then "Happy Birthday" is being censored / canceled.

    If the argument is whether copyrights should exist, yes that is an argument but that really isn't an argument regarding censorship in the case of whether a work is published or not.
     
    #4 rocketsjudoka, Mar 7, 2021
  5. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    15,106
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    NFT solves this.
     
    #5 Space Ghost, Mar 7, 2021
    Amiga likes this.
  6. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    54,232
    Likes Received:
    42,233
    I don't know if this was the thread you were referring to but a Libertarian who is against property rights is essentially a Marxist.

    The only people I can think of who are for copyright in perpetuity are Objectivists (certainly not Liberals) and I think most people are fine with a limit on copyright. Again though the argument about whether a piece of work should be published or stopped published isn't primarily one of intellectual property. There is plenty of creative work that is considered racist that isn't published or distributed anymore even though at one time they were. There is even more creative work that is completely innocuous that isn't published.

    The argument that it's an assault on freedom of speech and thought because publishers refuse to publish or distribute a piece of work is not just hyperbolic but frankly ludicrous. If that was the standard then I could claim that because EMI hasn't given me a record contract that I'm being censored and this represents an overall assault on free speech.
     
    #6 rocketsjudoka, Mar 8, 2021
    FranchiseBlade and fchowd0311 like this.
  7. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,434
    Likes Received:
    15,866
    Why should Mickey Mouse be in the public domain? It's something Disney created and spent tons of money to build the branding and iconic status for , and uses it as a key part of their business. What is the argument that I should be able to take Mickey Mouse and profit off of it myself?
     
    #7 Major, Mar 8, 2021
    pgabriel, jiggyfly and FranchiseBlade like this.
  8. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,396
    Likes Received:
    25,402
    This is like the big tech v. Australian news media thread. It becomes a matter of big content providers vs individual creative talents/groups.

    In any situation the little guy losses out... Ostensibly copyright laws were made to protect creatives but with the bargaining power of a budding talent, they usually have to sell most of their creative rights away to get a label.

    Today, you can self publish, but something like Spotify gave you cents to the dollar because of their ability to cherry pick your best hits through algorithm.

    Despite that, this is the golden age of self publishing as you can write any kind of book and collect mostly profit after some upfront costs.

    Without copyright, you could rip off someone else's technical manual, even screen scrape their website, and the game skews towards distribution and raw marketing power.

    I used to be a big reader of Lawrence Lessig. I think he was mostly in favor of ditching copyright extensions. That last example would be moot after 15 or so years. It would crater Disney's stock but you'd get more creative storylines (Disney would argue dilution) for your beloved stale, yet tried but true characters.

    Mrs. Pacman started as an illegal port until Namco and the distributer settled. It's not the best example but in this cut throat world of memes and ideas, there should be more source attribution and subsequent accreditation while also loosening the ideas generated half a century ago.

    I mean most of these trillions bytes of digital content are made up by unpaid or lazy kids. That might solve some income gap for better or worse, though I bet they'd side with Disney's perpetual copyright laws at that point.

    First stonks then copymines...
     
    #8 Invisible Fan, Mar 8, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2021
  9. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    54,232
    Likes Received:
    42,233
    True publishers and distributors still carry a lot of power and small time creators less power. I watched Chapelle's piece "Unforgiven" and it's a really good explanation of how little power up and coming creators have regarding publishers, studios, and other distributors. In Chappelle's case he can't even use the name "Chappelle Show" as Comedy Central holds the rights.


    This has been an issue since ancient times as artists relied on the patronage of rulers or other powerful individuals. In fact there are legendary stories of the Pharoah's and the First Emperor of China taking artists with them to the grave so they couldn't create art for anyone else.

    The current argument though and the one put forward here isn't really about the rights of creators. It's an argument against the rights of creators.
    It's only coming about because we are seeing intellectual property owners decide to not publish works for reasons that some don't ideologically agree with. In the case of the Dr. Suess books these were books that the original creator himself found troublesome but the argument being put forward is that this is a sign of "Leftists cancelling culture" so that it has to be opposed and that combatting "cancel culture" is more important than property rights. Again this is an argument that goes against a foundational principle of Conservative thought. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, that property is essential to society.

    Further this argument is ludicrous as even without copyright a publisher might still decide not to publish. Based upon the arguments put forward the logical extension would be that publishers and other distributors should be compelled to publish content out of some greater societal move to fight "wokeness." In otherwords it doesn't matter if Theodor Geissel's estate owns the rights to "And to Think I saw it on Mulberry Street", if they decide they don't want to publish it for reasons that seem politically correct they should be forced to publish it.
     
    #9 rocketsjudoka, Mar 8, 2021
    KingCheetah likes this.
  10. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,948
    Likes Received:
    111,147
    in hindsight this probably belongs in this thread more than in the other one

    Matt Yglesias on "Dr. Seuss as a policy issue"

    https://www.slowboring.com/p/dr-seuss-ip

    excerpt:

    I bring this all up because I think it’s relevant policy context for the recent controversy over Seuss Enterprises withdrawing six books from publication that were deemed problematic. Right-wing agitators have responded to this as if it’s the government censoring Dr. Seuss, and so out of solidarity with Dr. Seuss, they are buying non-canceled classics like “Green Eggs and Ham” in droves. But this is just not factual. Dr. Seuss has been dead for nearly 30 years. His heirs — likely these two stepdaughters, though that’s not entirely clear — canceled the books, and now are the ones reaping the financial rewards from the backlash to their own actions.

    The whole thing is perverse. And while it’s not the main problem with our current system of copyright, I do think it tends to illustrate the perversity of letting copyrights extend so long.
    ​
    more at the link
     
    #10 Os Trigonum, Mar 9, 2021
  11. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,822
    Likes Received:
    36,714
    I'm perfectly fine with ending inhererence and just giving property to the public after death and allowing the children to make it for themselves. Glad you agree.
     
    #11 fchowd0311, Mar 9, 2021
  12. TimDuncanDonaut

    TimDuncanDonaut Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,435
    Likes Received:
    31,317
    Because copyright laws, and lobbyist kept on changing them? The rule used to be a short span, then it's the lifetime of the author plus some years. It wasn't meant forever. Original creators: Walt Disney died in 1966 and Ub Iwerks died in 1971. It's been half a century since the original creators died. Copyright duration used to be much shorter.

    Currently it is at

    "Q: How long does copyright last before 1978?
    A: 95 years

    Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years."​

    2020 - 1928 (micky C term) - 92... you can bet Disney will lobby some more.​

    https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/

    "When the Copyright Act was first enacted in the United States, the copyright duration was only 14 years. Today Copyright duration can last over a century in some cases. Why such a drastic change? Some say it is all due to a cute little mouse named Mickey.

    Copyright duration had some changes over the 125-years before Mickey Mouse. In the Copyright Act of 1790, the 14-year term was renewable for one additional 14-year term, if the author was alive at the end of the first 14 years. And it only applied to maps, charts, and books. Registration and use of a copyright notice were also required. If you didn’t meet those requirements, the work immediately entered into the public domain. By 1831 it was changed to 28 years with a 14-year renewal and in 1909, copyright duration became 28 years with a 28-year renewal... "

    [​IMG]

    "Disney now has until 2023 to figure out how to extend that date once again. In 5 years or so, we can probably expect to see stories about proposed changes to copyright duration, once again. It is unlikely that a company as strong as Disney will sit by and allow Steamboat Willie to enter the Public Domain."

    When they do it for Micky; the law extends for others too. It's ironic, because all of the fairy tales that Disney make money off of: Snow White, Mulan, Beauty and the Beast,...etc they are American, European and Asian fairy tales that are in the public domain.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/

    1. Adventures of Huck Finn (1993) based on Mark Twain's book (1885)

    Revenue = $24.1 million (revenue figures listed where available - based on wikipedia data).

    2. Tom and Huck (1995) based on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain (1876)

    Revenue = $23.9 million

    3. Aladdin (1992) from a folk tale in One Thousand and One Nights (1706)

    Revenue = $504 million

    4. Alice in Wonderland (1951) based on Lewis Carroll's book (1865)

    5. Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll's book (1865)

    Revenue = $1.02 billion

    6. Around the World in 80 Days (2004) based on Jules Verne's book (1873)

    Revenue = $72.2 million

    7. Atlantis (2001) from the Legend of Atlantis (Socratic Dialogues “Timaeus” & “Critias” by Plato ~360 BC.)

    8. Beauty and the Beast (1991) by G-S Barbot de Villeneuve's book (1775)

    Revenue = $425 million

    9. Bug’s Life (1998) from Aesop’s Fables

    Revenue = $363.4 million

    10. Cinderella (1950) from Charles Perrault's folk tale (Grimm’s Fairy Tails) (1697)

    Revenue = $85 million

    11. Chicken Little (2005) from the folk tale

    Revenue = $314.4 million

    12. Christmas Carol (2009) from Charles Dickens (1843)

    Revenue = $325.3 million

    13. Fantasia (1940) scored and based on Bach, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven & other classical compositions (however, “ The Rite Of Spring” was licensed)

    Revenue = $83.3 million (22nd highest-grossing film of all time as adjusted for inflation)

    14. Fantasia 2000 (1999)

    Revenue = $90.9 million

    15. Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845)

    Revenue = $810.3 million

    16. Hercules (1997) from the Greek myth

    Revenue = $252.7 million

    17. In Search of the Castaways (1962) based on Jules Verne novel (1868)

    Revenue = $21.7 million

    18. John Carter (2012) based on A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1917)

    Revenue = $284 million

    19. Kidnapped (1960) by Robert Louis Stevenson (1886)

    20. Little Mermaid (1989) by Hans Christian Anderson (1837)

    Revenue = $211.3 million

    21. Lt. Robin Crusoe U.S.N. (1966) based on Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe (1719)

    Revenue = $22.5 million

    22. Mulan (1998) from the Chinese Legend of Hua Mulan

    Revenue = $304.3 million

    23. Oliver & Company (1988) based on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens (1839)

    Revenue = $74 million

    24. Return to Neverland (2002) based on Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie (1904)

    Revenue = $109.9 million

    25. Pinocchio (1940) by Carlo Collodi (1883)

    Revenue = $84.3 million (39th highest grossing box office gross as adjusted for inflation)

    26. Pocahontas (1995) from the life and legend of Pocahontas

    Revenue = $346 million

    27. Princess and the Frog (2009) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale The Frog Prince

    Revenue = $267 million

    28. Return to Oz (1985) from L. Frank Baum’s books

    (When original Oz film was made it was under copyright. Disney purchased rights to all the books. But when Return to Oz was made it had entered the public domain.)

    29. Rob Roy the Highland Rogue (1953) based on the Rob Roy by Sir Walter Scott (1817)

    30. Robin Hood (1973) from the English folk tales

    Revenue = $87 million

    31. Sorcerer’s Apprentice (2010) from the poem by Johann Goethe (1797)

    Revenue = $236.9 million

    32. Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (1857)

    Revenue = $416 million (10th highest grossing film as adjusted for inflation)

    33. Sleeping Beauty (1959) from the Charles Perrault folk tale (1697) (also with music/characters from Tchaikovsky’s 1890 ballet)

    Revenue = $51.6 million) (31st highest grossing film as adjusted for inflation)

    34. Swiss Family Robinson (1960) by Johann David Wyss (1812)

    Revenue = $40 million (83d highest grossing film as adjusted)

    35. Tangled (2010) from the Brothers’ Grimm fairy tale Rapunzel (1812)

    Revenue = $591.8 million

    36. Tarzan (1999) from Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1914)

    Revenue = $448.2 million

    37. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) based on the Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving (1820) and Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame (1908)

    38. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) from Victor Hugo’s Book (1831)

    Revenue = $325.4 million

    39. The Lion King (1994) from Hamlet (1603) and inspired from a 1960s Japanese animated series called Kimba the White Lion

    Revenue = $987.5 million

    40. The Jungle Book (1967) by Rudyard Kipling (1894 copyright, movie released just one year after copyright expired)

    Revenue = $205.8 million (30th highest grossing film with inflation)

    41. The Jungle Book (1994 live action version) by Rudyard Kipling (1894)

    Revenue = $43 million

    42. Three Musketeers (1993) by Alexandre Dumas (1844)

    Revenue = $53.9 million

    43. The Reluctant Dragon (1941) based on the story by Kenneth Grahame (1898).

    44. The Sword in the Stone (1963) from the Arthurian Legends

    Revenue = $22.2 million

    45. Treasure Planet (20002) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)

    Revenue = $109.6 million

    46. Muppet Treasure Island (1996) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)

    Revenue = $34.4 million

    47. Treasure Island (1950) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)

    48. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) by Jules Verne (1870)

    Revenue = $28.2 million

    49. White Fang (1991) by Jack London (1906)

    Revenue = $34.8 million

    50. White Fang 2: Myth of the White Wolf (1994) based on book by Jack London (1906)

    Revenue = $8.8 million
     
    #12 TimDuncanDonaut, Mar 9, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2021
  13. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,434
    Likes Received:
    15,866
    Sure - society changes and laws change with it. When copyright law was made in 1790, multinational companies that spend billions to build a brand out of a mouse for a hundred years didn't exist. "Because that's how it was in the 1790s" is a meaningless argument unless we think all the laws from the 1790's are still appropriate today.

    I'm asking, logically, if Disney spends tens of millions of dollars every year to build their brand and maintain their identity and continues to generate income from that identity, why should I be able to co-opt it for whatever I want to do with it just because its existed for a long time?
     
    #13 Major, Mar 9, 2021
    pgabriel likes this.
  14. TimDuncanDonaut

    TimDuncanDonaut Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,435
    Likes Received:
    31,317
    The example is that Disney themselves benefited from properties in the public domain, yet they themselves refuse to give in.

    Since Disney lawyered up, things in general take much longer to get back into public domain, to the point where, some things will never go in.

    Imagine, if someone records a happy birthday song or a mozart piece, do generations later still have to negotiate a royalty fee. If it's taking a century, then it's just greed.
     
    #14 TimDuncanDonaut, Mar 9, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2021
  15. London'sBurning

    London'sBurning Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,810
     
    #15 London'sBurning, Mar 9, 2021
    jiggyfly likes this.
  16. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    54,232
    Likes Received:
    42,233
    I really suggest people watch the Chapelle's "Unforgiven" piece to understand why intellectual property rights are important to creators.

    Anyway what set this whole debate off isn't about Disney holding onto the copyright of Mickey Mouse. It's about what some see as ideological opposition to a publisher deciding to stop publishing intellectual property.. The Geissel family holding the copyright is one thing but even without copyright whether they publish or not is up to them.

    Consider to what end the argument for that Geissel's heir's shouldn't be able to claim the copyright for "And to Think that I Saw it On Mulberry Street." Is there really someone else who wants to publish it and why? Because it offends some people and they are doing it as a statement to the oppose the "woke". While Geissel's estate stopped publishing those six titles because they felt that they were offensive those titles weren't big sellers for Dr. Seuss and there certainly wasn't cross marketing opportunities for the "Chinaman" and "Natives". It was probably a pretty easy business argument for them to stop printing them. It's hard to see a business reason why another publisher would be interested in publishing those titles for business reasons.

    Also There are also thousands of copies of these books still out there in private collections and libraries and also in digital format. These books aren't being erased from history. The only reason why this is an argument about copyrights is because "left-leaning" individuals argued for it so some are now reflexively taking the other side.
     
    #16 rocketsjudoka, Mar 9, 2021
  17. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,948
    Likes Received:
    111,147
    you're in the wrong thread again, but I'll add a few quick thoughts.

    1. If you can't see the overall problem with censorship and how these various cases relate, then I can't help you.

    2. You might not have seen the part in the other thread where I made an extended point about the difference between reasons/explanation and justification. I was very careful to say that if a publisher is making an economic decision to pull books, that's one thing (and justifiable). But if the publisher's explanation is censorship, then while they are obviously within their legal right to pull the books, they are on much more questionable grounds in terms of justification.

    While I made that point several times, here it is again for easy reference:
    3. The point about justification can further be illustrated with reference to the situation Andrew Cuomo finds himself in with the publisher of his covid-hero book. Again, if the publisher pulls Cuomo's book because the scandal has made sales drop and the title is no longer making the publisher any money, that is both explanatory as well as justificatory.

    On the other hand, if the publisher is pulling Cuomo's book to punish Cuomo, then that is insufficient as a reason and wholly unjustifiable, as much as I, the publisher, or anyone else dislikes Andrew Cuomo (and I hate Andrew Cuomo).

    This is a point that was well made by Jazz Shaw yesterday (bolded):

    I suppose I’m just suspicious by nature, but I have to question the reasons that Crown Publishing is offering for this decision. In their response to the New York Times, they cite the ongoing investigation into the nursing home deaths as the reason to shelve the book. On the surface, that’s a pretty reasonable explanation. After all, it’s a book under their banner that supposedly extolls the Governor’s amazingly successful handling of the pandemic while in reality, he screwed it up entirely. That has to be something of an embarrassment.

    But if the investigation was the real justification for canceling their promotion of the book and further reprints, why wait until now? The nursing home scandal has been in the news for many weeks. Alternately, you might say that they wanted to wait until everyone was certain that a coverup took place before making a hasty decision to shelve the book. But if that’s the case, the investigation isn’t over yet.

    Perhaps the real reason is hiding in plain sight in the explanation Crown Publishing gave for making this move. They acknowledge that sales of the book had already “slowed severely” since the news of all these scandals came out. Why would a publisher order more copies of a book that was no longer selling? This may have simply been a case of realizing that they were going to have to suck up some losses on Cuomo’s book and they’re bailing out on it but using the excuse of the nursing home scandal to look like they’re making a principled, noble decision.

    Just for the record, cancel culture isn’t any better when it’s going after a Democrat. If this was a business decision by Crown Publishing based on poor sales, that’s fine. But they signed a deal to publish the book and Cuomo still has the right to earn a living. If they canceled his book because they’re passing judgment on his performance or personality, that shouldn’t be celebrated.
    ​
    The argument here is that Cuomo is owed due process just like anyone else; the rush to convict him in the court of public opinion (i.e., people are "offended" by Cuomo) is not a sufficiently legitimate basis (by itself) upon which to cancel his book's publication.
     
    #17 Os Trigonum, Mar 9, 2021
  18. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,822
    Likes Received:
    36,714

    Why?

    If I start my own publishing company, I damn well chose whatever reason I want not to print something outside the federally protected classes of race, religon, nationality, sex, age, veteran status or physical or mental disability.
     
    #18 fchowd0311, Mar 9, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2021
  19. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,822
    Likes Received:
    36,714
    Also I hope no adult is naive enough to think these companies making decisions not to publish something are for sincere moral reasons rather than pure business decisions. Their public reasons are what we call "public relations".

    I can't believe I have to explain this.

    From Mr. Potato Head to Chris Cuomo, all were pure business decisions based one what the owners/executives thought would help future profits.
     
    #19 fchowd0311, Mar 9, 2021
  20. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,466
    Likes Received:
    43,677
    Lol
     
    #20 ThatBoyNick, Mar 9, 2021
    Invisible Fan likes this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 5

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now