NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8492677" data-attributes="member: 177">So, to show how hard it should be to come to certainty here, we can also look at it this way - you say you'd be against efforts to remove it.  But...We say the owner has a right to make available any piece they want.  They own it, they have rights with respect to that ownership.The people who raise their voices in effort to have it taken away... they have rights too, to raise their voices, yes?  So, now we are in the position of supporting one group's rights while telling others they should not exercise their own, similar rights?  That's... super awkward, and kind of logically dicey stuff. Not a good place to have certainty.There's a distinction I became aware of over the past couple of years that can serve us here.  There is a difference between a problematic past piece being recognized as history, and giving it current representation and voice in culture. Song of the South is a pretty iconic example here - whether or not they have a legal right to do so, it would ethically crummy for Disney to make that piece available for general entertainment - if it showed up on Disney+, even with a strong disclaimer, that would be giving it new and pretty powerful voice. However, making it available to help teach the history and forms of racism in media, would be thoroughly legitimate, to the point where copyright protections would fail anyway as Fair Use.And it may be helpful to start thinking of unfortuate legacy products in this manner.</blockquote>

Verification