Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8492318" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think the problem people have is that these things aren't binary, and that a lot of questions (like this one) are both illuminating and obfuscating. Let me provide an example to show you why-Think of a library. A library should be able to choose what books it has on the shelves, and what it doesn't, right? For example, sometimes a books gets worn out, or there just isn't space, or whatever, and the library will discard the book or sell it off (a "Friend of the Library" sale). I think most people would agree that libraries should not be forced to  keep every book that they've ever had continually available, right? That's crazytown!On the other hand, imagine that there's a book that's controversial and some people want the library to remove it. It's a perfectly good copy of the book- the people want the library to remove it because of the content. You can make the example as sympathetic (Melissa) or as unsympathetic (Mein Kampf) as you want. My gut feeling is that regardless of the example thought of, most people would probably feel a little uneasy about this. In fact, this is what most people refer to as "banning" a book (even though you can probably buy it or travel elsewhere to get it).So if you ask, "Should libraries be forced to keep every book that they have ever had continually available forever?" ...I think most people would say no. If you said, "Should people pressure libraries to remove books because they disagree with the content?" ... I think you would likely get a different response. But both are fundamentally about the libraries' control of what it carries- just whether it should be exercised independently.Now what you're probably thinking is, "Woah. Libraries aren't (usually) profit-driven corporations! You're trying to pull a fast one, Snarf!" No, I'm not. I'm using the analogy to show how analogies (and hypotheticals) both illuminate and obfuscate.For your question, the corporate owner of legacy IP is very similar to the library.* Because a lot of it is in the way the question is phrased- no, of course there is no duty or obligation to make all their IP available to everyone, forever. In fact, until very recently the problem was almost always the opposite; because of issues of cost (physical products, lawyers love to say no, etc.), it was often very hard to get hold of older IP, if you could at all. Only the rise of digitization and the distribution model of the internet allowed this. But the question you ask is similar to the one about the library- by asking the question, you are conflating forcing a library to keep a book on the shelf indefinitely with allowing people to force libraries to take books off the shelf because they disagree with what is in the book, which are two different things.That said, I believe that this only applies to legacy products. Obviously, what the company is making now is completely within their control because ... that's their product! I think reasonable distinctions can, and should, be made between what a company is doing in the present, and the past media of a rights-holder that you access. Finally, I don't think that any of this is necessarily binary. I think a lot of people are struggling with some of these distinctions- what is public, and what is private? When do we want to apply the principles of free speech (not the law, but the principles) to corporations like Hasbro and its offerings? As more media moves to the cloud or is "on-demand," how much should we worry about edits and changes made to older media (or should we)?Most of this is novel, and while I have certain opinions, I don't necessarily think that they are all correct. But I do still feel strongly that products should be made available (with disclaimers, as necessary) so that people like the OP can dig into them and critique them, and so that people from Peterson to Appelcline can access older material as needed, and quickly.***There is a separate, and unfortunate, issue that in many places in this country, due to various cutbacks, many people are much more likely to be able to access older content at nominal prices through corporate means than they are through a library system, but that's neither here nor there.**I would add that I appreciate it as well, but I just write long and meandering posts that might mention a little history in order to have a long acrostic that ends up with "USMELTITUDEALTIT".</blockquote>

Verification