It's disingenuous to use the Dr. Seuss example, since it was his delegated agents who made the decision. The way it's worded in your post - "using copyright to censor" doesn't reflect the fact that his estate chose to do this, on their own, using their uncontested property rights. What could represent freedom more than that?
I am not sure that I follow. I think "using copyright" does imply that it is done by the copyright holders. I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue.
There are other examples of using copyright for censorship. The infamous book by the mustache man was prevented from being reprinted in Germany until 2016 by the copyright holder (Bavaria's state government) [1]. Use of DMCA notices by corporations to suppress disparaging news about security vulnerabilities is another example.
Do you believe these are not instances of censorship?
> I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue.
Not the GP, but I assume they meant that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue in terms of censorship: Censorship is something that's done to copyright holders. What they themselves do is something else.
[EDIT:] So, yes, I would say at least your Knausgaard -- oops, no, the other guy with a similarly-named book -- example is not censorship. Something similar, but not quite the same thing. [/EDIT]
I don't think censorship really has much to do with copyright. A book can certainly be in public domain, and still be censored.
It is mostly about infringing the restricting the ability of individuals to choose what they would like to read, hear, and watch; and also infringing their right to free expression.
:-) On the topic of the book by he-who-must-not-be-named, I beg to differ. The intention is quite clear, copyright is just the means to achieve it.
Here is a Gedankenexperiment: assume that there is a jurisdiction in which the state, instead of the estate [1], automatically becomes the copyright holder after the author of a work passes away. [2] If the state starts making rules on which books by dead authors cannot be published, wouldn't you call it censorship?
[1]: Sorry for the a-maize-ingly corny and unfunny dad joke, couldn't resist.
[2]: This is not too far fetched, apparently this is roughly what has happened with you-know-what in Bavaria.
I just think "censorship" means something directed at whoever is trying to say something a la "I've been censored!". Trying to stop people from hearing a message without a specific sender, that's just "out there", is somethnig slightly different so IMO it should also be called something different. "Suppression (of ideas)", perhaps? Something like that.
But yeah, I agree: Let's not mention Kn***rd's name again.
What’s the difference between something like the Dr. Seuss issue, and an estate not releasing something written in the first place? Neither seem remotely close to censorship to me, but I’m curious if you think the key difference is revoking access to something once released.
They've got two parts: individual freedom to do what you want with the property, and control over what other people can do with the property
More freedom would mean anyone can do what they want with the property, eg if somebody wants to read or copy the book, they can, regardless of what the author says
My perspective is that this concept of "freedom" is so vague as to be useless. EG, for property rights, my freedom to decide how others use my creation vs. other people's freedom to use my creation. It's just a word that has lost all meaning, especially in the US.
