Remote Proctoring deemed illegal as violation of 4th amendment rights?

[Jonathan Whatley]

So should some of Dr. Suess's have been canceled?

We have a system of intellectual property rights by which media goes out of print, offline, into more limited release, into expensive collector markets etc., all the time. That a book like And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, originally published in 1937, has gone out of print seems very commonplace and unexceptional. Many Dr. Seuss books are still in print.

I care a lot that material is available in libraries and archives and eventually in the public domain. It seems the six Dr. Seuss books that went out of print in 2021 are available in libraries and archives somewhere, and will enter the public domain later this century (and then anyone will be able to reprint or adapt them).

[LevelUP]

So I don't think that we should go back in history and cancel previously made books or movies.

[ss20ts]

This thread has derailed.

[Jonathan Whatley]

So I don't think that we should go back in history and cancel previously made books or movies.

Your reader can't know if they agree or disagree if they don't know what you mean by "cancel."

Are you proposing something to change the longstanding fact that some commercial media becomes less available over time? Most books first published in 1937 like And to Think... or 1955 like Lolita are now scarce and hard to find and often expensive. There are exceptions like Lolita. But as time goes by increasingly many of those exceptions drop off and join the majority of titles that are scarce. Occasionally older works experience revivals in interest. Many will never experience such revivals. How many 1937 and even 1955 books, movies, and songs will ever be on your playlists?

The market for media changes and commercial publishers respond to changing interests. Digitization has revived some old media, but with limits. There's plenty of media that was available online years ago that's no longer now. Eventually media enters the public domain which makes it more available.

[LevelUP]

So I don't think that we should go back in history and cancel previously made books or movies.

No need to say anything. If you agree, then thumbs up to this post.

Your reader can't know if they agree or disagree if they don't know what you mean by "cancel."

Are you proposing something to change the longstanding fact that some commercial media becomes less available over time? Most books first published in 1937 like And to Think... or 1955 like Lolita are now scarce and hard to find and often expensive. There are exceptions like Lolita. But as time goes by increasingly many of those exceptions drop off and join the majority of titles that are scarce. Occasionally older works experience revivals in interest. Many will never experience such revivals. How many 1937 and even 1955 books, movies, and songs will ever be on your playlists?

The market for media changes and commercial publishers respond to changing interests. Digitization has revived some old media, but with limits. There's plenty of media that was available online years ago that's no longer now. Eventually media enters the public domain which makes it more available.

You are correct. There are market forces involved. (updated cancel meaning)

What often happens is the publisher has an extensive catalog of titles. A smear campaign is launched against specific titles a publisher has.

Now the dilemma is, do you fight the smear campaign and risk people boycotting your entire catalog?

Or do you give in, take some titles off the market and save the majority of revenue from the titles that are not under attack? 

Here is a piece titled "Why it's time to cancel Quentin Tarantino."

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/ju...-hollywood

[Jonathan Whatley]

Would I oppose a smear campaign? That almost answers itself. Would I oppose a boycott? In some cases yes, in some cases no.