作者和他们的“淘气”书:索塞诉舍伍德案的有益经验

Q2 Arts and Humanities Authorship Pub Date : 2015-06-17 DOI:10.21825/AJ.V4I1.1105
M. Richardson
{"title":"作者和他们的“淘气”书:索塞诉舍伍德案的有益经验","authors":"M. Richardson","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V4I1.1105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the 1817 case of Southey v Sherwood Lord Eldon LC denied an injunction against the pirating of Robert Southey’s potentially ‘mischievous’ Wat Tyler, setting the tone for judgments in cases to come. The judges’ approach gave little account to the concerns of the authors whose interests in controlling their pirates lay in preserving their reputations and maintaining their livelihoods. The upshot was that the pirates prospered, large numbers of possibly seditious, blasphemous, defamatory and obscene books were published in England, and authors and judges were publicly excoriated. Eventually, judges had to reconsider their failed approach while authors looked for new ways to control their status and sources of income – as well as formulating some sharper distinctions between their public and private lives.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authors and Their ‘Mischievous’ Books: The Salutary Experience of Southey v Sherwood\",\"authors\":\"M. Richardson\",\"doi\":\"10.21825/AJ.V4I1.1105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the 1817 case of Southey v Sherwood Lord Eldon LC denied an injunction against the pirating of Robert Southey’s potentially ‘mischievous’ Wat Tyler, setting the tone for judgments in cases to come. The judges’ approach gave little account to the concerns of the authors whose interests in controlling their pirates lay in preserving their reputations and maintaining their livelihoods. The upshot was that the pirates prospered, large numbers of possibly seditious, blasphemous, defamatory and obscene books were published in England, and authors and judges were publicly excoriated. Eventually, judges had to reconsider their failed approach while authors looked for new ways to control their status and sources of income – as well as formulating some sharper distinctions between their public and private lives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Authorship\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Authorship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V4I1.1105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Authorship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V4I1.1105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在1817年的索塞诉舍伍德案中,Eldon勋爵驳回了针对罗伯特·索塞潜在的“有害”作品《泰勒》盗版的禁令,为以后案件的判决奠定了基调。法官的做法几乎没有考虑到作者的担忧,他们控制盗版的利益在于维护自己的声誉和维持生计。结果是海盗们大行其道,大量可能具有煽动性的、亵渎神明的、诽谤的和淫秽的书籍在英国出版,作家和法官受到公开的严厉批评。最终,法官们不得不重新考虑他们失败的方法,而作者们则在寻找新的方法来控制自己的地位和收入来源,并在他们的公共生活和私人生活之间形成一些更明确的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Authors and Their ‘Mischievous’ Books: The Salutary Experience of Southey v Sherwood
In the 1817 case of Southey v Sherwood Lord Eldon LC denied an injunction against the pirating of Robert Southey’s potentially ‘mischievous’ Wat Tyler, setting the tone for judgments in cases to come. The judges’ approach gave little account to the concerns of the authors whose interests in controlling their pirates lay in preserving their reputations and maintaining their livelihoods. The upshot was that the pirates prospered, large numbers of possibly seditious, blasphemous, defamatory and obscene books were published in England, and authors and judges were publicly excoriated. Eventually, judges had to reconsider their failed approach while authors looked for new ways to control their status and sources of income – as well as formulating some sharper distinctions between their public and private lives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
“Better place no wit can finde”: The Compiler as Author in Early Modern Verse Miscellanies “Unembedded, Disappeared”: “As Truthful as Our Notion of the Past Can Ever Be”: William Edward Daniel Ross’s Transformation into a Popular Fiction Novelist, 1962-1967 Writing Back against Canada’s Fictive Ethnicity:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1