zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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.

>>saalwe+q1
> This; the old books still exist. No one is coming for them.

Sure, and beyond that, my point was, if copyright deposit is working, there are copies in public hands, specifically for the purpose of preservation and availability beyond the expiration of exclusive rights, not just old books in private collectors hands.

>>dragon+(OP)
Few would dispute whether the owners of the rights can make these changes. The question is whether they should (the answer is no). Given that they have, the proper response is derision.

>>dragon+02
I wish the law said something like "once you start selling copies of a copyrighted work to the public, if you ever stop, you forfeit the remaining term of your copyright". This would not only fix this problem, but also a lot of scummy artificial scarcity practices.