Hi, ya'll. Now that I know copyright violation is one of those pesky laws which are ok to violate as long as you are discussing the violation of other laws, I am really, really happy. There's been so much I've wanted to post here for discussion and felt restricted.
Like
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte?
Honest, it is the entire edition. Oh, wait, she's been dead for more than 75 years. Hold up.
How about The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer?
Damn, that's mine and I'm still alive -- ok, go ahead and read something other than the damned "Miller's Tale." You people are pathetic. I've written about more than farts and window sex.
Ok, trying again -- how about James Joyce's Ulysses? Wait a sec -- counting on my fingers -- 1941, 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011. Erm, oopsie -- better check with google books.
Ok, well, there's the Bible and Lysistrata (not to be confused with each other). And there's Beowulf of course. But these volumes are only for those who are wimps regarding copyright law.
I want to see the courageous in their convictions -- the ones who are defenders of the rule of law -- I want to see the full text of Kazuo Ishiguro's Unconsoled published here for discussion of: is it a frustration dream in 800 pages or is Ishiguro highly over-rated as one of the great novelists in contemporary times.
Come on -- some one out there can do it. Ishiguro won't mind if he gets his book republished without royalties for discussion. Copyright law is sort of quaint anyway, is it not?
Thank you future Ishiguro poster in advance.
CRITICAL UPDATE: h/t Its the Supreme Court Stupid --
little c with a circle around it gchaucer2 2011 ($35 dollars plus application to Copyright Office sent 2 minutes ago)