I would really like my readers to weigh in on something. Something that I'm not sure I'm right about.
The newspaper editor disagrees with me about the Dr. Seuss situation. His take: "... I think [the Dr. Seuss company] ha[s] been unfairly criticized. End of the day, they made marketing decisions they think will increase sales. God bless profitable America."
Thomas Knapp lumped those like me (and Claire Wolfe) who don't think this was a good move, with the "deplorable".
If the company (corporation?) did this to boost profits, I hope it hurts them financially in the long run. I don't want censors to prosper, especially when they make their decisions based on "someone was/might be offended". It doesn't matter to me if they had the "legal right" to do what they did-- that's a statist notion.
I think this shows the flaw with IP generally and with copyright, specifically.
Dr. Seuss didn't make this decision about his works, someone else who was entrusted (by whom?) to manage his legacy has decided to vandalize it, instead-- in my opinion.
If they won't publish those books, I think it would be perfectly ethical for someone else to publish them-- especially if they used some of the profits to support causes Dr. Seuss would have supported. I can't imagine him supporting cancel culture, but maybe he would have-- I know he was a flawed human being.
But what do you think? Is this something they have a right to do and I am being anti-market if I object? Which side of the divide do you find yourself on?
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Check out my TeeSpring shop
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
I don't think it was a good move by the company, but companies bending the knee to cancel culture will have effects on their bottom end whether it be positive or not. They made their decision, but I'm unaffected by it generally. I've read Dr. Seuss books in the past but I've never bought the books; I've watched the movies at the theatres though.
Its unlikely I will ever go to the theatres today because Hollywood is just ultimately crap, but that's unrelated to Dr. Seuss.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If a company doesn't want to manufacture something anymore for whatever reason, that is their call. That's freedom in a shell really. However, I am still in awe that cancel culture continues to carry on in the United States. Over here in the conservative county that I live in we just wait for what the next absurd thing that is going to get cancelled could possibly be. I hear that Disney is on the chopping block next.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Then they should stay out of it if anyone else decides to publish those books. They lost their (fake, IP-based) "ownership". They were entrusted with his legacy, they vandalized it instead.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, I mean they certainly have the right to not publish a book. I guess the question that you are really asking then is do they have the right to prevent others from publishing it?
Morally, I don't think so. Even if you agree with the premise of copyright, a book written in 1937 when the original author is long dead deserves no such protection under the law.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit