Not in the traditional sense of the word. The strategy used today is more of a soft damnatio memoriae.
For example, the estate of Dr.Seuss has decided not to publish or sell certain titles over supposedly racist content.
https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-st...
Even the author of Captain Underpants (Dan Pilkey) and his publisher withdrew from sale an entire decade-old issue of a series spinoff due the use of a stock kung-fu master character in a few scenes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpan...
The last one is rather surprising because the Captain Underpants series has been one of the most challenged and censored books. In an article penned by the author himself, he had this to say:
"To set the record straight, I should point out that my books contain no sex, no profanity, no nudity, no drugs, and no graphic violence (at least nothing you wouldn't see in a 1950's Superman comic book). So what's the big deal? Well, most of it boils down to the fact that not every book is right for every person. There are some adults out there who are not amused by the things that make most children laugh, and so they try to stomp these things out. We've all met people like that, haven't we?"
Rather ironic.
As I recall, there is only one "offensive" page (displays a "chinaman" in a way that is not politically correct)
Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.
New copies must keep being made. Over time, the number of accidentally misplaced or damaged copies will reduce the numbers in circulation.
> Are they obligated to continuously [retool and] produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity?
Without question. If you appoint yourself as a gatekeeper of a piece of content, you better stay alert and willing to let people through the gate. Anything else amounts to culture hoarding or vandalism as people are denied the chance to participate in a shared experience. Access to affordable culture (all of it) is a right, not a privilege, especially when it’s so bloody cheap to duplicate.
Don’t want the responsibility of granting people access in perpetuity? Let people duplicate the content freely. Pirates will do it without grumbling if you just let them.
Yes there is. And if you read the articles I listed, the motives for the retractions were made quite clear by the respective parties. In both cases, the removal of the work had nothing to do with market saturation.
> Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.
I'm not arguing against an author's or publisher's rights to delist or even destroy a work. It's well within their rights their to do so any reason whatsoever. It doesn't take being worked up to make it clear that books are just as susceptible to creator/owner censorship as cartoons are or that authors can be fickle and hypocritical. What I take issue with is the philosophical reasoning behind the retraction.
Kids seek out cartoons and will happily watch them for hours. A problem parents often face is getting their kids to stop consuming so much video entertainment that the kid doesn't want to do things like go outside or exercise.
Most kids on the other hand have no interest in books like "Tom Sawyer" and are only going to read them when they get assigned in school. There the books will be accompanied by lectures and class discussions that put them in historical context.