Youtube comments of David MacKenzie (@davidmackenzie9701).

@joshuagomez6986 Yes, and you need someone with maturity to handle them; that is not Boris.
6
@tomeala7141 In the case of 1984, though we run into a number of problems, we have editions based on what was written on Jura, where he lived, and a definitive version based on Orwell's original manuscript and notes; some claim that these should be seen as revisions; I disagree. And, it is "Nineteen Eighty-Four", not 1984, if you go by the original manuscript and book.
5
I really have to agree with this. While they are sort of equivalent, the Victoria Cross is specifically "For Valour". It is a terrible title, completely unnecessary.
5
@MarcIverson So, it is alright to release an edition that was not to the satisfaction of the author--as in the case of orwell--or which was edited to death by a political dictatorship--as in the case of Grossman--and say that the edition that the author HAD intended is "new". No, it is the edition is that one the author intended. You do not hide the other editions. Perhaps you store them away in a museum where people can look at them and understand what was going on. But to say that the author's original intentions or desires should be seen as anything other than the definitive edition is wrong, even if it is seen as a failure. It is not a matter of being grown up, adult or whatever, it is a matter of being honest to the author's intentions.
4
@ballyhigh11 This. He can be removed, but Parliament has to approve it. It is not up to Charles, who, it is being reported, wants to replace Andrew and Harry (who no longer lives in the UK), with the Princess Royal, and the Earl of Wessex, but he has to wait for Parliament.
3
@safeandeffectivelol You know that Orwell didn't like the book as it was published, and wanted to make changes. What do you do then?
3
Of course he was like that about most of his writings.
3
What Bowie actually suffered from is called anisocoria: namely that one pupil was bigger than the other. It means that the iris can’t react to light in the same way as the other, so the area appears to be darker.
3
@dunebasher1971 It is still a disgrace. They effectively changed the name of the program. Next we'll be hearing that London is the British version of Washington DC, or that Britain, is the British version of the USA. It really isn't necessary.
3
@derekhough-jm9gc Baruch took responsibility for Churchill's economic problems; he had given him bad economic advice, and paid him back for it.
2
@ItsOnPaper And, as was said it is a problem with other companies. Just because you want it to be an Amazon only problem, does not make it so. The fundamental problem is that publishers wants to control the distribution of their products. To do this they use DRM. This is because, unlike what happens with physical books, where there is only one book; if you did not have DRM, you could redistribute book freely, and the publisher would lose money; at the same time, ebooks are only licensed except where the publisher permits the actual sale of the ebook, normally at a higher price.
2
@MarcIverson No, he can't put out as new version. He was very ill with tuberculosis at the time of publication, which was why he didn't change it, and he was dead within a year. It was published in June 1949, and he died in January 1950. As for whether it should have been called a new version. Of course it should have, but it should be noted as the one that the author wanted. In Russia, there was an author called Vasily Grossman, he wrote a book that he wanted to call "Stalingrad". He was told that he couldn't do that, and that it could only be published if he took out large chunks of it which were deemed anti-Soviet, and which should not be said by a Jewish author. He did so, and it was published under another title. Recently, Robert Chandler got his hands on the original manuscripts, and had it published under the title Grossman originally wanted "Stalingrad", is this a new edition? It was the version that the author wanted.
2
@fortinotafoya140 Go Ask Alice is a problematic book, though in terms of authorship and authenticity.
2
'None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew the unspeakable evils wrought upon the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime. The Jew bore the brunt of the Nazi's first onslaught upon the citadels of freedom and human dignity. He has borne and continued to bear a burden that might have seen beyond endurance. He has not allowed it to break his spirit; he has never lost the will to resist. Assuredly in the day of victory the Jew's suffering and his part in the struggle will not be forgotten.' -- Winston Churchill, November 14 1941
2
@stephen-oconnell No; he is free to criticize, he is not free to distort and hide the truth.
2
@PMetheney84 Why would you want to do that? The Holocaust is well documented, the concentration camps, the genocide and so on reported by those who witnessed them first hand. You misunderstand something about history; it is not about questioning its facts, but about understanding its meaning.
2
But, the same is true for the Kobo. You don't own the book there, either; you just get a license.
2
@toomanyaccounts No. It was definitely a consequence of the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. The merger of two specific companies, and a shift from engineering-centric operation, and shareholder-centric operations. No DEI there.
1
@combatwomble5584 Not 'good', lucky.
1
@timz9862 They did.
1
You are just o wrong.
1
@MrMac1138 Not music. If you buy music from Amazon you are able to download it in a non-DRM format which you can put on any device. The point about physical objects is that you do own them, the point is that there are restrictions on what you can do with them. You cannot make copies of them, except in some jurisdictions where you can make a backup. If you buy a book, it is yours; nobody is going to come to your house in the middle of the night, and tell you that your license has been revoked. It doesn't work that way with purchased hard copies.
1
@dreamdream011 I own all my digital music bought on Amazon. The only thing that I might lose is the ability to download it if I close my Amazon account.
1
@MrMac1138 Amazon's digital music is DRM free. You are actually buying it, and are free to install it on as many devices as you have.
1
@paulminshall8793 Not quite. With a library, there is a very clear deadline for returning the book, and there are penalties for not returning it on time. Most libraries do not charge you to borrow the book. With Amazon you can keep the book for as long as you have an account. Now, they have very clear procedures in place for ebooks which have copyright problems.
1
@blah914 There are lots of public libraries.
1
@edrodgers1258 It is not in the public domain in the US.
1
@edrodgers1258 Not in America, which is where Amazon is based. It is still under copyright for a few more years. That was why they had to remove that particular version. They did have entirely legal versions you could get.
1
@ajs41 But you are not paying for the book. You are paying for a license which you hold for as long as you have an account with Amazon, Kobo or whatever. The only time you own the ebook is if you purchase it from the author or publisher. And even then, there is often DRM linking it to you, and there are restrictions on what you can do with it.
1
@StephenMatrese Yes. So they didn't steal it.
1
@illegalopinions4082 With kindle books there is a message underneath the 'Buy now' button. If you follow the link it tells you what you are buying. You are buying a license.
1
@Digger-Nick In some parts of America, it is more difficult to find these books in libraries.
1
He would be the first to admit that he is not tough. In no way is he trying to be a 'military man'. He is showing respect for people that he really admires as heroic.
1
@3nertia Never said it was, but in this case, it is not as clear cut as many here want to make it. In this case, there were many options to get a legal book. That did not circumvent the rights of the estate of the author, and of a legitimate publisher. The person who published the illegal book, probably hadn't even thought of the matter of rights, it's an old book, so it should be okay, only in this case, it wasn't. The Irony is that, if they hadn't put it up on Amazon or some other ebook platform it probably would have been okay.
1
@3nertia Yes, the right thing. 1984 is still under copyright in the US, where Amazon is based. The only people who can publish copyright books are those who have the rights to do so. If they publish or distribute books that they do not have the rights to, then they are opening themselves up to civil and criminal proceedings.
1
@3nertia Complain about what? Them doing the right thing?
1
That is only one definition. It is also wrong.
1
Fake news.
1
Libturds Suck Not really. What is being claimed is a gross misrepresentation of what Biden said. My problem is that I actually check facts before I make statements about them.
1
As soon as you mention Ayn Rand, you lose me. She is horrible.
1
@SeekingTheLoveThatGodMeans7648 No. The publisher didn't have the rights. So Amazon had to take the book down. There was nothing else they could do. The book you had on your device was not owned by you, just licensed. Amazon had to remove it because it was not a legitimate, licensed copy. You could still get a copy of the book on Amazon from an authorised publisher. People are making it an issue because they want to get at Amazon, not because they are right.
1
@glofacekilluh But, the painting that we have now is, more often than not, not what the artist gave us. It has deteriorated over time, for whatever reason and is not what the artist gave us. As for the Bible, if you look at the different versions, they are often very different, translating texts from the original language, often changing the meaning. In the original Torah, for example, you will find no reference to the Ten Commandments, they are Ten Sayings.
1
@MarcIverson Not in the case of Vasily Grossman, and not in the case of George Orwell. In the case of the former. His work was ruthlessly edited by communist editors at the time of Stalin who told him that he could not say this or that about the events around Stalingrad, especially as he was a Jew. He was writing at the time of Stalin; you get a clear view of what he wanted to write because of the manuscripts that he left, and because of his later, 'Life and Fate' which continued the story of the first book. In the case of Orwell, you get it from his own mouth. He was not satisfied with what he had sent to the publishers, but he was dying, he was in hospital, seriously ill, and was dead within half a year. In the case of the former's work, the editors, afraid of what the Russian secret police might do, gutted the former book, and refused even to publish the latter, 'Life and Fate', which had to be smuggled out of Russia after Grossman's death, and published abroad. You can know that what was published originally, was not what was wanted by the author.
1
@utubepunk And Kobo, and Google Books and so on. The difference between digital books and DVDs is that, whoever you get it from, unless they make it clear that you are purchasing the book and own it, you are only licensing it from them, and the license is non-transferable. The only way you can back it up is if it never had DRM protection. If you buy a digital book directly from the publisher you do not run into the problem of having to have an account.
1
But, it wasn't called the Holocaust until much later. However, Churchill did make speeches in the House of Commons and in other places about the disaster that was falling on the Jews.
1
@YeahYeahBeebisI Godwin is alive and well on the internet. Look it up if you don't get it.
1
@blah914 No, you asked if the UK has national libraries. You did not ask if they had online selections. Just because that is what it means in the US, doesn't mean that it is the same elsewhere. But, yes, there are ebook libraries in the UK (e.g. The London Library). The National Library in the UK is the British Library.
1