Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
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.
|
So whoever owns the copyright can do what they want with it, owners of the originals can keep them and, when it's in the commons, anyone can have at it. Meanwhile, bystanders can wag their fingers at whomever they please.-)
Publishers sanitizing things for their markets shouldn't be surprising. I might smirk at their prudery, but they're the ones pocketing the money.
I don't think we disagree, do we?