zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Authors make these kind of changes all the time during their lives to. As long as we have works with rights that outlive authors, the people that exercise those rights will do this just as authors do. We might think that those heirs have less of the “good artistic sense” we see the authors themselves as endowed with, but, it is generally the author’s choice who will inherit the rights, and from there it is those heirs who choose where they are transferred.

Should we weaken that? Perhaps, for lots of good reasons besides preventing updates based on changing social conditions. But every weakening reduces the incentive to create, too. And, if the deposit part of copyright is working, nothing is lost in the changes – all are preserved. (If that’s not working, it should be fixed independent of whether there should be revisions to the rights situation.)

>>dragon+981
> nothing is lost in the changes

This; the old books still exist. No one is coming for them.

The copyright-owners have simply decided that the new editions of the books will be different.

Hell, this might even be a simple cash-grab: if the books aren't selling as well now, and their royalty checks are shrinking, they may have done some basic market research and determined that the perceived crassness of the works was turning off modern book-buying-parents, and decided they could make more money with a revised edition.

If you don't like it, there will be thousands, millions of old copies at used bookstores and libraries; most old books don't get new editions, anyway. And if that's not good enough, by around 2060 most of the copyrights will have expired (his work spans the 1978 copyright change), and you can republish them with whatever changes you like to your heart's content.