Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
No, you misunderstand. The emphasis is "author". The author is the one and only entity that should be allowed to make changes.
|
In principle I agree with you. I'd have no problem with such a right being added to laws about intellectual property. The law would have to state that this right can't be signed away in contracts.
In practice, I suspect this kind of law would have little or no effect. A publisher would, after all, still have the legal (and moral) right to say:
"We're considering reprinting one of your books, but we'll only do so if you'll agree to the following changes in the text: ..." I also suspect it's pretty rare that publishers actually bother with such changes.
Quote:
|
After death, there cannot be anymore changes.
|
Why? How would the world be improved, what gain for society would there be, if during the first 70 years after an authors death, the text of their work has to be frozen in amber?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
Yes, I know what I quoted. You cannot have it both ways. Banning books, because they don't fit an agenda is the same as rewriting books, because they don't fit a different agenda. Both is the same kind of book banning. Neither is good.
|
I don't think this is the same thing at all, but that part of the discussion is probably better fitted for the Politics and Religion forum, so I wrote an answer there.