[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We’re not talking about private correspondence or unpublished drafts here.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.