I was referring to what the word “theft” actually means. I will admit to being not that interested in how American lawmakers subvert a perfectly clear word like theft in order to make copyright violations appear to be something they are not.
No “goods” where “stolen” in the paragraph above.
All works of art are derivative of previous works of art. Unbalanced copyright laws retard this process.
Exactly how much more benefit is it to the owners of the copyright for someone to view this book through these means rather than through an unsanctioned link online?
And exactly what benefit is it to the copyright owner if I buy this book used? He still gets nothing and I get the book.
Exactly. Posting an obscure, long-out-of-print work online, when there’s no reasonable likelihood of it ever being reissued by the copyright holder, takes no money from the pockets of the Gorey Estate. No harm, no foul. Even if technically a violation of copyright law (and it would be a pretty hard-hearted judge who would convict you, if it ever came to a prosecution), it distributes the work to a much broader audience than it would otherwise ever have. All things being equal, every creator of content wants more people to see his stuff, not less.
Consider, in ascending order of the number of eyeballs brought to bear, how The Recently Deflowered Girl can now be seen. Were Gorey alive, would he rather have his older work available only to those who (a) buy it secondhand through rare-book websites, and thereby pay his estate nothing, or (b) go to some trouble to get it free (such as through interlibrary loan), and still pay his estate nothing, or © see it posted online, and yet again pay nothing?
I have no hesitation in answering ©. Still no money to the estate, but more people get to see and enjoy it. It’s the best outcome possible under the circumstances.
Yes. It’s a problem. It’d be great if there were a mechanism for distributing copies of orphaned works like this. It doesn’t really serve the purposes of copyright law. But wholesale copying is pretty much never fair use. So it’s a technical violation. I’d be astounded if anyone got charged criminally for it.
Nevermind.
This is not quite right. First, public libraries can be WorldCat members, and many larger public libraries are. Smaller libraries are less likely to bother.
The Recently Deflowered Girl is not the sort of book that many public libraries are likely to own, though. It’s old and obscure, so there’s not going to be much call for it outside academia. I would bet that most of the public libraries that ever owned this book weeded it from their collections decades ago.
It should be easy enough to get a copy of this book through ILL at a university library if one is a student or faculty/staff, because universities are usually willing to share books with each other. But I don’t believe they are as generous with public libraries…especially not public libraries outside their own region. I don’t work in ILL or at a public library so I couldn’t swear to that, but it’s the impression I get. Some people might be able to get this book through ILL via their local public, but I would be surprised if all public libraries in the US were able to get ahold of a copy.
Quoth Exapno Mapcase:
If the concept never existed previously, how can it be subverted?
The New York Public Library (Research Library Collection) has this in its catalog, but lists its status as “missing”.
Now that’s theft.
Could be because Amazon lists the used book from $138 to $682.
Out of curiosity, are there enough remaining Gorey works to do a fourth volume of Amphigorey?
Oh yes. Theft from the Research Collections in New York is not only profit-motivated, but can sometimes be outright strategic. Years ago I was researching pre-WW2 television broadcasting up there, and several incredibly rare scripts - all cited in the same book published a few years previously - turned up missing. My best guess was that someone had no idea of their existence until he read the book, and figured he’d better git while the gittin’ was good.
I’ll just respond to this post, since it compiles so many of the specious arguments in handy capsule format.
Start with this statement. It’s another example of the mind-reading act that Argent Towers tried to dazzle us with.
How do you know what the intentions of the Gorey estate are? Are you an authorized representative? Are you Mel Juffe, the author of the work? Many copyright holders have long-range plans for the re-release of materials that they own. This particular work is not an orphan work, BTW. The Gorey estate is active and manages works, putting them out for periodic release. Holding back works until a set time makes them more valuable. Pirating their contents makes them less valuable. Yes, you may very well be hurting them economically. You cannot make the economic decisions for somebody else’s property. You’re not allowed to do this in any other circumstance.
True, these violations seldom come to a prosecution. However, this tells me you have no idea of the scope of piracy and pirate sites on the Internet. There are thousands of sites, pirating millions of books. It is an enormous problem and hurts large numbers of writers.
This is the one that kills me. I’m really doing you a favor by stealing your stuff. Why don’t you thank me for my wonderfulness?
Hogwash. I am the creator. It is my work. You have no right, no legal right and no moral right, to decide for me how to disseminate my work. I am the creator. I know better than you what is good for me.
Before you steal somebody’s work, go write this on the blackboard 100 times:
“You are not doing me a favor by stealing my creations. You are harming me.”
I don’t know. I am absolutely positive you don’t know. I do know absolutely for sure that he legally entrusted his work to a group of people to make these decisions for him. I will bet you large sums of money that if you posted this question to them, they would say, take it down.
Of course, the person who put up the book could easily have sought out the Gorey estate and asked permission. If they thought it was so wonderful an idea they would have said yes.
You know what happens in real life if the copyright owner gets asked if their work can be put on the internet for nothing? Almost every time they say no. They do, you know. Why do you think that is? Because they are economic morons who don’t understand the wonderfulness of expanding their readership? Not likely. It is because it’s to their benefit to maintain control over their works to display and disseminate them on their own schedule. Or not. As they please. It’s theirs, not anyone else’s.
I also know for sure that both libraries and used books are technologies that authors have approved of for centuries. Stealing works for other peoples’ benefits is not something that most authors condone. Authors talk about this all the time. It’s not like this is an issue that we have all missed while so many people are out there doing favors for us. Authors are not a body and do not as a group agree on anything. In general, however, the vast majority of authors hate you putting up their works on the internet without permission. This is not a secret.
Should the current copyright laws be changed? There is a constant debate on this. Virtually everybody, including all those authors I’ve mentioned, would like to see changes. Virtually everybody agrees that nothing is going to change for a very long time because the legacy system is too large.
But this has nothing to do with a debate over copyright. Except for that small group that wants to remove copyright entirely, the legality of authors controlling their own economic fates will not change in any new copyright act. That is an absolute.
There is only one core issue, and it is the same one I mentioned before. It has become so easy to steal someone’s writing that it has become common to do so. And because it is common people have devised a number of rationales to excuse their behavior. They are apparent if you examine them in this way. “I’m doing you a favor by spreading your works to a greater public.” “I’m not really stealing anything because you still have the original.” “If it really were wrong there would be more prosecutions.” “Big, faceless corporations are oppressing the little man.” “I’m only one person. What harm can I do?” Read through this thread and I’m sure you can add to the collection. It’s the 60s all over again. “Property is theft.” At least Abbie Hoffman had a sense of humor when he wrote Steal This Book.