Like Phil said, the digital copies have actually helped the paper sales. The main buyers of the Fletcher Hanks books were DCM/CB+ members.
I fear that is misguided wishful thinking, narfstar. The Fletcher Hanks books went through multiple printings because they appealed to NON-DCM/CB+ people. People who were willing to PAY MONEY for the material, which is not a unifying trait of site members. I believe that there are no hard facts to support your statement. If you have some, I'd love to see them.
I'm afraid that pirating (both selling and buying) are wrong. You, as a moral man, should have no problems with either concept. Situational morality is all too prevalent in our society. We say we believe in Public Domain rights (supposedly) in our description of the sites, but it seems that a lot of members aren't too bothered by buying DVDs or streaming downloads of non-PD material.
If someone has the rights to something, Mark, it is NOT immoral to "hold on to work not done by yourself". In what way is it immoral? YOU didn't have anything to do with the creation of it, either, so why should your interests supersede the law? What "right" do we have to "see" it other than our own curiosity and desire? Neither of which grants us ANY rights.
Sorry. I don't like orphaned works either, but these arguments are specious at best and self-serving at worst. I don't like the law as it is nor as it is proposed, but our disapproval doesn't give us the right to ignore or bypass the law. Suck it up and admit that there may be things you'll NEVER see - IF you want to remain a moral, upstanding person. If not, all bets are off, but don't try to cloak your decision in some moral justification of some abstract "right" that you have to see everything. Or that buying pirated works is less offensive somehow than selling them. That's simply self-delusional wishful thinking.