View Single Post
Old 02-20-2023, 08:31 PM   #53
SteveEisenberg
Grand Sorcerer
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,470
Karma: 44460032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjaybe View Post
If they want to publish a revised version that they feel better reflects their current beliefs, then no one should should try to get in the way of their freedom of expression.
I'm not wholly sure I understand where you are coming from.

Suppose someone, who didn't pay approximately $2 billion to Dahl's survivors, wants to create a new and improved version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Should anyone get in the way of their free expression?

Note issybird's suggestion that the copyrights should, ideally, have already expired. If copyright was, say, Life + 30, some publishers could now come out with new and improved products, while others could brag about selling the original Dahl texts. So long as all were honestly labeled, I'm fine with that legally. I would argue in favor of buying originals, and Netflix executives could say I was wrong. Now, that's free expression.
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote