In reacting to the news that a publisher made politically correct language edits to the R.L. Stine Goosebumps books, please consider maintaining some self-respect and perspective.

@Popehat I wish more people understood that it's not about revision so much as it is about retaining the copyright.

https://theconversation.com/from-roald-dahl-to-goosebumps-revisions-to-childrens-classics-are-really-about-copyright-a-legal-expert-explains-201246

From Roald Dahl to Goosebumps, revisions to children's classics are really about copyright – a legal expert explains

Sensitivity edits benefit copyright holders, who wish to keep less tasteful elements of the works they control out of the public eye.

The Conversation
@TheNerdyMel I find myself skeptical about this explanation.
@Popehat @TheNerdyMel I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the article is that these revisions *can't* extend the copyright, but are made in hopes of maximizing sales/profits before the work has to go into the public domain. However, in pharma, companies routinely extend drug patent protection by cooking up “new and improved” formulations for when the original expires & can go generic.
@erchanda @Popehat
Oooh, I do appear to have misread that a bit. Thank you.
@erchanda @Popehat @TheNerdyMel how does this work? Can somebody else still sell the original as a generic?
@ehproque @Popehat @TheNerdyMel TLDR: Patent marketing exclusivity for a brand-name drug expires after 5 yrs: generics can then draw off up to 90% of sales. They don't have to redo all FDA testing but they do have to show pharmaceutical equivalence: identical molecule with same purity, strength, stability, and quality as the original. But a brand-name drug can get an extra 3 yrs of exclusivity for a new formulation (e.g. extended-release capsule) or disease for which it can be used.
@ehproque @Popehat @TheNerdyMel But I don't think there's a similar extension for copyrights (though US extended it fr 75 to 95 yrs for all in 1998).