[barrysteve]

What would be the service in that?

Let people keep their works exclusive if they so wish.

We don't publish the formula for Coca Cola, but somehow an author (or his estate) has less entitlement to his own work, than an a flavour technician at Coca Cola.

Stop cheating the rules. It makes me not want to write, not want to work.

The strongest desire I have for an authoritarian leadership is to keep sticky hands and brazen heads off works, that took a lifetime to make.

People say we don't need the wrath of god, but we also don't need the double standard of "secrets for me, openness for thee".

[getoj]

We’re not talking about private correspondence or unpublished drafts here. Orwell clearly didn’t want these works to be secret, given he published them in the newspaper.

His widow wanted them forgotten because she wanted to control his image. He is a controversial figure whose ideas changed a lot over the course of his life. After her death, they were collected, presumably with permission from the family.

That they are not in wide circulation now is because they are voluminous and obscure, so there is no market to sell them. I certainly am not interested in reading all of his book reviews and political reporting. But many more people are interested in reading them than have the university connections required to do so.

There is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by making the complete works available to anyone for free, or even for a normal amount of money. But no publisher is going to because it’s not profitable. That’s fine, they don’t have to, but that fact undermines any argument that a volunteer who does this archival work is somehow acting immorally.

[barrysteve]

Publishing in the newspaper is not proof of future intent. People want published works retracted all the time. Half of all youtube videos since 2015 have been deleted. Should I go undelete those videos on their behalf, just because they published them once?? Come on!

She should be allowed to control his works if she is the legal owner. If it's just to control his image, then yes that's a lame intent. But she should be allowed to do it.

Exclusivity is lost. Control is lost. Cover from global attention, is lost. The ability to recommend articles to the suitable audience, is lost.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you and posting it on the web (for free, no less) is 100% immoral.

Why are you even saying this.

[lazzlazzlazz]

Yes, we should allow Orwell to keep his works private (that is, printed in newspapers for the public as he did himself) and not public (that is, in the hands of the small number of private collectors who would be interested in preserving these works).

Incredible example of doublespeak!

[atoav]

How much worse of a world would you be willing to accept if it being worse gave you the slim chance that you'd profit a small bit longer if you ever had success?

Would you close public libraries if you believed it gave you a 3% profit increase when you do so? (In fact having a library opened will generate more readers, so more customers will be buying you book even if some can rent it for essentially free).

These are not a trick questions, they are the actual ethical questions at play here — and the reason you are being downvoted.

As a European it is also crystal clear that this kind of thinking is the root of most major social problems the US is experiencing for decades now (in comparison to nearly all other similar wealthy nations). The US would be in a much more economically sustainable place now if it wasn't for the constant "privatize gains socialize losses"-game.

[barrysteve]

It doesn't matter what hypothetical profit I could make. I didn't dream of fat stacks of cash and then derived the desire to write.

I should (and do) have the right to prevent pilfering of my work. Or more accurately, forced inclusion into a system of pilfering, not just one thief taking to afford bread, but tens/thousands/hundreds of thousands doing the same, together.

I love the option to include my work on the web, in a library, ect. But to do so against my choice is beyond the pale.

I love the option to keep things exclusive and electively publish.

I write for my own reasons. I get it, the son makes abundant life for all, and the thief destroys all. I agree with the 'book' that states that truth.

Putting concepts and ideas on the web or in public access is not a clear cut win, and some ideas need decades of work to mature before they are both palatable to the public and also kept away from systematic rewrites and revisions, kept away from making a bad first impression on customers, ect , ect.

There are many many examples of works being repossesed and edited against their original intent on the web, we saw it happen to Roald Dahl recently, JK Rowling is probably next.

Why would I write harry potter if I was not motivated by money and also knew that a beaurcracy in a foriegn country was going to erase Hermoine from my books.

I'd keep my work completely out of reach, and profit less, and retain control.

Because guess what, at the end of the day, some people like Einstein, Newton, Dickens, Twain, ect would consider the work they created to be meaningful in-and-of itself. And someone who sacrifices for decades to make such a work, would rather protect it, than prostitute their beliefs for economic gain!

I mean come on, we all have notice the drop in quality of works produced and then we defend the perverse anti-incentives we have in place.

The best way to have your cake and eat it, is to actually have your cake and eat it.

Incentivize the best work to be created and then protect it once it exists. In that ideal world, who cares if people don't pay? As long as the freedom to create and deploy or retract is unimpeded, then quality works can exist.

[Thorrez]

He published them in newspapers. They weren't secrets.

Trade secret laws and copyright laws are different things.

[barrysteve]

Who cares what he did, once open, is not always open.

Youtube has deleted 50% of it's videos since 2015. Do I have the right to reach back into those profiles and undelete them, and republish their deleted videos?

Yes trade secret laws and copyright laws are different things, true fact established.

If we're living under the rule of law and not an authoritarian society, you have to justify pilfering copyrighted works, which you conveniently, didn't.

[Thorrez]

I agree with you that rule of law is good. I think the copyright length should be reduced. But you're right, that just because I believe copyright length should be reduced doesn't give me or anyone else the right to infringe copyright.

However, you seem to be trying to use copyright to enforce secrecy on a non-digital item, which doesn't work. Someone who owns that rare book can put in a library for anyone to come by and read.

Using copyright to enforce secrecy on digital items (Youtube videos) partially works. The reason it doesn't fully work is because there are exceptions for fair use.

[skeaker]

> What would be the service in that? Let people keep their works exclusive if they so wish.

Who are you to assume that he wouldn't want his works remembered, and that this would be a disservice to him? Who are you to assume his wishes?

>We don't publish the formula for Coca Cola

We should.

>Stop cheating the rules. It makes me not want to write, not want to work.

Then don't. If the destruction of knowledge is what you want, you would be better off burning books than writing them.

[Larrikin]

Don't write and prove to the world that all the things you didn't make made the world worse.

[barrysteve]

You want me to prove a negative? How many times do scientists have to point that is impossible?

also known as; they can't prove God does not exist (flying spaghetti monster, ect, ect). You can't ask me to prove that no writing makes the world worse.

The problem is of incentives. Freedom to pilfer other people's works, is destroying the heart and soul in the desire to write.