Almost all copyright laws have a 70-year time limit for works of an author or artist­— of any kind really. While many of you on this and other college campuses ignore copyright laws, they do have quite a bit of significance.

In order to use an individual’s piece of work, these laws require permission by the creator or current owner, in the event the creator is dead.

Recently, however, the copyright laws on author James Joyce’s works have expired, meaning that anyone who wishes to reference or distribute his materials no longer needs permission. Of course, this does not mean one can download his works for free, or actively publish his past material claiming it as their own. Essentially, the copyright laws are lifted on published material, not unpublished.

Recently, Ithys Press, a publishing company, obtained a copy of “The Cats of Copenhagen” written by Joyce. The piece comes in a series of letters to his grandson, written as a bedtime short story.

The stepbrother of Joyce’s grandson donated the letters to the Zurich James Joyce Foundation. The letters still remain in the custody of the foundation, but Ithys Press just recently released the story.

The foundation is outraged and feels as though it has been violated since the permission to use Joyce’s work was never granted. However, since all the copyright laws surrounding the works of James Joyce have expired, there shouldn’t be anything that the foundation or anyone else can do to stop the dissemination of Joyce’s work.

Anastasia Herbert, spokeswoman for Ithys Press, told the BBC that the release of this book was merely done as a tribute to the writer and that the foundation trying to prevent her and Ithys Press from spreading the story around is morally reprehensible. Ms. Herbert has a point; there is no reason why information shouldn’t be freely distributed among the people. Also, Ithys Press trying to make a profit on this venture isn’t unlawful either.

However, for Herbert and Ithys Press to say that this was a tribute to the author doesn’t appear to be entirely true. Ithys Press only released 200 copies of the story at a range of $300 to over $1000 — hard to stand on the moral high ground of freedom of information when selling that information for such a pretty penny.

I have no problems with Ithys Press trying to make money; they are a business and they have needs to meet. However, to say that the release of this story was purely on motivation to let people get a view of Joyce as a caring grandfather, while charging nearly a grand to read it, seems disingenuous.

Ithys Press should be honest; they wanted to make a profit, and they saw an opportunity to make some money with the end of copyright laws. Also, the Zurich James Joyce Foundation should be honest in saying they are angry that they didn’t get the chance to release a book of their own to make a few euros.

The bigger issue at hand here, which Herbert touches upon, is the withholding of information from the people. The foundation has a great number of pieces of Joyce’s work, and to my knowledge, have no intention of releasing the work other than allowing a few scholars to examine it.

In her statement for the BBC, Herbert mentions there is no reason why “only bona fide scholars” should have the right to view the works of an author. Who knows how many countless pieces of writings, paintings and drawings are out there being holed up for a few scholars to drool over, despite the works being public domain.

I haven’t read anything of James Joyce’s and might never, but I do believe that the works he created should be available to anyone and everyone who wishes to view them since they have legally entered into public domain. This goes for all pieces of art; they weren’t created to be hidden from the world, but instead for the world to one day see.

Joyce certainly didn’t intend for “Ulysses” to go unread. Freedom of information is an important aspect of our lives and we need to protect it as much as possible. While Ithys Press may not be righteous in this decision, they did make a fair move.