George Orwell Complete Works
george-orwell.org
george-orwell.org
If you post the generic information "Orwell", which is all that "The Complete Works" really points to, then the discussion will only be a boo-vs.-yay thread about Orwell-in-general. This is not so interesting, and that sort of thread usually degrades pretty quickly.
What you should do instead is post the most uncorrelated/curious article by Orwell (or maybe about him) that you can find—preferably something that highlights some little-discussed or surprising aspect. Then the hivemind has something fibrous to chew on.
This is an application of the principles "lists don't make great HN submissions" [1] and "generic subjects are less interesting" [2].
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell
http://gutenberg.ca/index.html (search for Orwell)
It would not be legal for American residents to access the above. His works remain under copyright in the USA; now 95 years from publication so Nineteen-Eighty-Four will enter the public domain there in 2044. Though really, things are getting, if you will excuse the expression, rather Orwellian with copyright, and it seems likely to me it will never become public domain.
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".
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.
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.
Incredible example of doublespeak!
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.
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.
Trade secret laws and copyright laws are different things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, Orwell remains under copyright in the US because his works were published <95 years ago, before life + 70 started applying. For a hypothetical author that published something on January 1st 1978 and died the same year, that work would enter the public domain in 2048. If the same work was published just a day earlier, it'd enter public domain in 2072.
Another conclusion one can reach from this is that life + 70 rule itself is under 70 years old, so no work actually entered public domain that way, and in the US no work will enter public domain that way for the next 25 years.
'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a MSCHF Big Red Boot (patent pending) stamping on a human face – for ever LOL' — George Orwell, I guess?
Why would it not be legal to access it? It isn't being reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed by the reader. What would the violation be?
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek / The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus Observer, 9 April 1944
The only full reproduction of it I can find online (apart from an abridged google book) is here:
This seems incomplete, using the wrong definition of 'competition' to try and make a clever point. Competition does not necessarily grant permanent 'winners' or 'losers', unless the 'game' is forcibly ended for good. Infinitely repeated games are very different in nature from singleton games, and the number and nature of the players involved are also not fixed.
Just buy the book, or borrow it from a library.
Fortunately Google search still works well:
https://www.google.com/search?q=napoleon+site%3Ageorge-orwel...
It's a pretty amazing story (non-fiction), and also quite apropos to our current political reality with people calling for civil war. I think that's just crazy right-wing rhetoric, but still. Orwell writes about how the military becomes split into factions and civilians become divided, with cities either becoming strongholds or splitting into fighting neighborhoods with escalating violence. Definitely a must read.
Low quality effort.