> Absolutely. Because if we don't draw line there, we'll see no end to history (and art is part of history) being rewritten and modified for increasingly inane reasons.
While I am sympathetic to this argument, the article also mentions updates to stories by Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl. I see those updates as something that right holders do to sell more copies of well-known works to modern audiences. For me, that's their prerogative: their rights, they(1)'re welcome to try and make money off of it.
In other words: do not commit censorship of existing works, but allow updates by anyone (modulo copyright(1)).
(1) who should have exclusive rights (and when) for commercialising works is another question.
There's a number of issues with the creation of adulterated versions of classic works cause by their mere existence.
Unless you were already an expert in that particular topic, even knowing that the most accessible version is the censored one is difficult, since it's presumably not being published under the title "Classic Book: Current-Year Approved Edition", but just "Classic Book".
The current dominance of streaming services also means that for most people the newest version may effectively be the only version that exists.
And then there's the even worse practice of replacing version even for people who bought the original.
In theory this could be done correctly. Products would announce that they're an edited version (and name the editor), and whatever digital storefront would enable people interested in the original to view it at no additional cost. But I don't trust modern platforms to do either of these things.
Semi-related: Any video game developer that allows rolling back their game to any past version as a standard feature of their launcher deserves praise for this. And those whose remasters can be configured to be played exactly as the original should the user so wish.
Well that's the rub, right? We live in a world with strong copyright, where a corporation has complete ownership of cultural artifacts, and it can decide on its own whims what it thinks will be more profitable at a given time.
The tendency of corporations to go back and revise/censor those old works in the name of profitability is just one of the many ways that lengthy copyright monopolies are damaging to society.
While I am sympathetic to this argument, the article also mentions updates to stories by Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl. I see those updates as something that right holders do to sell more copies of well-known works to modern audiences. For me, that's their prerogative: their rights, they(1)'re welcome to try and make money off of it.
In other words: do not commit censorship of existing works, but allow updates by anyone (modulo copyright(1)).
(1) who should have exclusive rights (and when) for commercialising works is another question.