Revolving Door Between Gov't And Industry Continues: Pharma Lawyer Goes To USPTO As Gov't Financial Regulator Goes To Wall St.

Feds Appealing Ruling That Said Warrantless Wiretapping Was Illegal; Will This Backfire?

Did Scott Turow Keep The Copyright On His NY Times Op-Ed About The Importance Of Copyright?

from the questions,-questions dept

Wed, Feb 23rd 2011 1:29am — Mike Masnick

We were among many different commentators who mocked the recent op-ed in the NY Times by Authors Guild boss (and best selling novelist) Scott Turow, in which he seemed to suggest that to incentivize the next Shakespeare, the world needs much stronger copyright laws. The day after that op-ed was published, Turow was at the Senate speaking out in favor of censorship in the form of the COICA law. This is somewhat startling, and if you're a member of the Authors Guild, you should be asking serious questions about an organization that supports censorship.

While many people pointed out the hilarious irony of Turow and his colleagues using Shakespeare as an example for stronger copyright laws -- since the Bard lived in an era without any copyright laws, and was famous for directly copying the works of many others -- some others noted a separate bit of irony. In taking to the pages of the NY Times to insist on the importance of copyright for authors, or warning that authors may not have incentives to write any more, some pointed out that the standard NY Times Op-Ed agreement involves handing over your copyright on the Op-Ed to the NY Times to do whatever it wants with it.

And, yet, this still seemed worth it to Mr. Turow. In other words, despite his explicit words talking up the importance of copyright as the key motivator for content creation, his implicit actions suggest he knows quite well that there are many, many other incentives to create, and many people -- including himself -- are willing to create even when they do not retain the copyright on their works. As the author of the above linked article, Wendy Kaminer, notes at the end of her piece:

When editors at the Times publish an op-ed stressing the cultural value of copyright protections, it's probably not your copyrights they have in mind.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, scott turow

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

-, 23 Feb 2011 @ 1:57am

No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 23 Feb 2011 @ 1:58am

Creator's choice.

This is a concept lost on Mike Masnick.

Because he's never created anything original.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 23 Feb 2011 @ 2:19am

Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
So what was Shakespeare�s incentive to write?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:01am

Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Spoken like someone that's never created anything.

iow, all the kool-aid slurpers on this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:12am

Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
So what was Shakespeare�s incentive to write?

Money? Fame? It gave him both, though not in great amounts. Or maybe he just liked writing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:21am

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Hey, I've written full novels before, and I don't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:52am

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
http://forum.ragezone.com/f10/10-easy-steps-create-enemy-61268/

Cant wait for #6... oh wait. Check on #7 as well. #8 The diety is TD.... #9 duty bound are ya?

So that leaves #10 Ah yes... ya touched on that one too... not creating is somehow something to be feared.

@- & Lawrence Nice question though I think the wrong one & "may have" isn't it either. Occums razor & human nature: Do you really need an incentive to create?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:15am

Re:
This is getting old.

Do you have anything useful to add? Anything at all? Anything that might make someone go like "uhm, that was interesting"?

And don't come with "the kool-aid drinkers of this site will just put me down because they are a bunch of freetards" speech. Because, if this is a truly one-sided, terribly biased website you seem to believe it is, I really really don't understand why you keep coming back.

I don't want you to stop posting. I just want the baseless attacks to stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:21am

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
So, I'm confused. He didn't have copyright, yet he made money? Lots of it, in fact? Impossible!

Better step up your game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:30am

Logical error
I kept thinking about this one and it started really bugging me.

A. The mother of all invention is NOT incentive.
B. Did history and technology switch Whats In It For Me from What Do I Need?

I suddenly smell the acrid of matches about to light my feet. So question, is the point here to find incentives or meet our needs? P.S. Happiness is a need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:31am

Logical error
I kept thinking about this one and it started really bugging me.

A. The mother of all invention is NOT incentive.
B. Did history and technology switch Whats In It For Me from What Do I Need?

I suddenly smell the acrid of matches about to light my feet. So question, is the point here to find incentives or meet our needs? P.S. Happiness is a need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:35am

Re:
Creator's choice.

This is a concept lost on Mike Masnick.

Because he's never created anything original.

Ah the old fallacy that "you have to be a rabbit to understand rabbits".

Actually -to understand something properly then being to deeply involved in it is the last thing you want. It is perfectly reasonable - in fact preferable - to understand things from the outside.

The fact that you don't understand this point suggests that you have never understood any subject properly.

(Note that my logic although superficially similar to yours - is in fact quite different and (unlike yours) valid.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:48am

Re:
>> Creator's choice.

Do you mean to publish or not to publish? ..to share your thoughts or not to share them?

>> This is a concept lost on Mike Masnick.

This website is proof he has decided to publish his commentary and analysis.

>> Because he's never created anything original.

That's because Mike is not a human being. The Mike is an obelisk that is progressively teaching Anonymous monkeys how to beat the Turing test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:52am

Re: Logical error
>> So question, is the point here to find incentives or meet our needs?

Meeting our needs is an incentive like any other, but meeting our needs comes with a free bonus: it gives you a clue to the solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
You've mistaken me for a copyright maximalist. I'm the opposite. But I think that the Mike's post simply makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-, 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
You've mistaken me for a copyright maximalist. I'm the opposite. But I think that the Mike's post simply makes no sense.

Sorry, I confused 2 things in the above post. Please ignore (or delete) it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:59am

Re: Re:
LOL! Is that a Space Odyssey 2001 reference which I see before me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Well, I don't understand your post. And I don't play any game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:03am

COICA another pig at the trough asking for preferential treatment. Funny how these same people talk of free markets and how government subsidy needs to be eliminated and they want us to ignore the man behind the curtain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:26am

But what about his great-grandkids?
He went and *sold* the copyright? How are his descendents 5 times removed from today going to make a continued living from this invaluable piece of work? Oh, wait, I forgot, that's music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:36am

Mike Masnick supports copyright
Doesn't he? Or does he support terrorist, child porn, spammers, and hacker "right to freedom of speech" through their crimes as well?

Cries of "CENSORSHIP!!!!" are a red herring. If you want to imply censorship is inherently bad, please be willing to go all the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:37am

Mike Masnick supports CENSORSHIP
lol. That subject was meant to read "Mike Masnick supports CENSORSHIP".

It's early morning...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:39am

What's wrong with selling your copyright to a publisher?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:56am

Re:
Question(s):

Isn't copyright supposed to be an incentive for the creation of art? Therefore, if the copyright holder sells his copyright, isn't he basically "giving up" on art (or that particular artistic expression)? Because he basically just gave away his "motivation".

Also, does the buyer, who now holds copyright over a specific artistic expression, have any motivation for creating more art? If no, then, wouldn't the model of "selling copyright" eventually extinguish every form of artistic expression?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:00am

Re: Re:
Isn't copyright supposed to be an incentive for the creation of art? Therefore, if the copyright holder sells his copyright, isn't he basically "giving up" on art (or that particular artistic expression)? Because he basically just gave away his "motivation".

Copyright allows people to make an income by selling their work. Selling your work to a publisher is nothing new. And you do need copyright to do it, or any publisher can run your story for free and it becomes much more unsellable for the writer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:06am

Re: Re:
To be fair, it's all they have left, really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re:
"Copyright allows people to make an income by selling their work."

Right, but you don't give away your rights in that case. What I was wondering was what happens to the artists supposed incentive when he just sells away what is, supposedly, his motivation to create more art?

"And you do need copyright to do it, or any publisher can run your story for free and it becomes much more unsellable for the writer."

Why do I need copyright? I've seen many many cases of artists who make a decent living while giving away their art. They are just smart enough to understand how to make a profit from item that are somehow related to their art or to themselves. In the software world, that is an easy one: sell services. You can just give the software for free.

I think that artists could find similar methods of making money out of their art, without needing a special law that virtually guarantees them profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:29am

Re: Re:
>> That's because Mike is not a human being. The Mike is an obelisk that is progressively teaching Anonymous monkeys how to beat the Turing test.

We are all familiar with the Library of Babel?

See, Mike is a by-product of Anonymous monkeys.
He's A Long serial bit stream touring complete round the world
Able to raise Cain among primates who can't comprehend
Though a program, he's teacher of the Turing test unfurled.

HAL? ..I know. It is a pity I come here to babel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:33am

Re: Re:

This website is proof he has decided to publish his commentary and analysis.

Yeah but no one's interested in that enough to rip it off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:33am

Re: Re: Re:
It was, but if you read further down, you'll see I have a weakness for mixed metaphors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
what happens to the artists supposed incentive when he just sells away what is, supposedly, his motivation to create more art?

When he creates more art, he gets copyright for that as well and has the choice to sell it, keep it, and/or market it as desired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
http://forum.ragezone.com/f10/10-easy-steps-create-enemy-61268/
Never thought of it quite that way but those steps you could equally equate in hindsight to many things in the US recently: Website takedowns, bp oil spill, airport security, internet privacy, "cyber attacks". In each case just pick your deity (usually money but possibly "the environment" in at least one case) and off you go. Same for the UK ("Obscene" publications, speeding and others) and probably most other governments and/or major corporations (is there a difference any more?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:57am

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Well, you didn't answer the question. Maybe your head is too far up your ass to be able to read?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:21am

since the Bard lived in an era without any copyright laws

If you read the comments after David Post's article, it is mentioned that in fact there were STRONGER copyright laws in Shakespeare's time: http://volokh.com/2011/02/17/there-should-be-a-name-for-this-one-too/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:43am

Re: Re: Re:
Yeah but no one's interested in that enough to rip it off.
Perhaps not but you for example seem interested enough in it to spend a portion of your day reading it all and spitting bile all over it. My time's quite valuable to me though of course I can't speak for yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:45am

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Spoken like someone that's never created anything.
Well I've created many things. It's a large part of my job.

So what was Shakespeare�s incentive to write?

Did that sound different that time? Different enough to answer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:48am

What I am still trying to figure out is how Mike manages to divine someone's intentions by their implicit actions only.

He is like a magic blog man thing.

The rest of us would get reamed in comments for something like that, the rest of you are climbing up Mike's butt and enjoying the smell.

Perhaps this post is a parody, and or Mike is trying out new material for his stand up routine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:58am

Re:
This article really is a stretch. I picture Mike just sitting there on his computer, searching the internet for anything, ANYTHING, that can possibly be stretched to point out how dumb he thinks copyright is. It's kind of funny when you picture it. Some of these articles are really, really desperate sounding.

This article is just silly because of course Turow knows that there are other reasons people write. It's also silly because an op-ed piece is hardly the next War and Peace.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:12am

Re: Re:
It's also silly because an op-ed piece is hardly the next War and Peace.

And Justin Beiber's latest single is hardly the next 1812 Overture......and.....wait.....what was your point again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Re:
I've never heard his music, so I couldn't say. Copyright is doing all sorts of good things for him and his fans, though. That much is clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:23am

Re: Re: Re:
Yeah but no one's interested in that enough to rip it off.

Why would someone rip off something that's free to begin with?

As for the "no one's interested" part - anytime I do a Google search on keywords like copyright or patents this site seems to always be in the Top 10, so it seems that quite a few are interested, despite you wishing otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is doing all sorts of good things for him and his fans...

LOL. Beiber got his start on YouTube, singing other people's songs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:29am

Re: Re: Re:
Haha, nice one. There are about a dozen sites out there that directly rip every single techdirt story and republish it as their own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did he? That bastard! He stole that haircut from me, by the way. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 23 Feb 2011 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
And none of them do nearly as well as the original, I'll wager. As people here should know by know, Mike doesn't mind that sort of thing. It just drives people back here to the source when they see the copycats for what they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
precisely
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 11:22am

The assignability/transferability of copyright is an additional incentive to create. Someone who takes advantage of that is not somehow showing that copyright is not important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
A brief Google will show that Mike's articles have been reposted numerous times, sometimes with proper credit, many times without.

So yes, Mike has been "ripped off" many times.

Next baseless assertion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:34pm

Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Money. They paid at the door to the theater and he took his cut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:38pm

Shakespeare is not the same at a torrent-loving couch potato
Shakespeare may have borrowed the plot lines but he wrote his own words. Really. In fact, it's common for people to borrow plotlines today even in the face of copyright. If Shakespeare were writing today, I don't think that copyright would have prevented him from borrowing some of the plots that he did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 5:37pm

Re: Re: Logical error
Why do we need a clue to the solution? Then comes living in self-perpetuating illusion of subjective wealth and the bliss of ignorance.

I think you missed point A.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh Jesus H.... he knows this. He's baiting you to keep you sidetracked ffs.

Get a grip ppl and stop falling for the damn obvious. His comments are complete bollocks and take 1 post with 1 line to dismiss to anyone intelligent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not the reason you're now looking stupid though!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:23am

Re:
Additional incentive to create? But... but... copyright is the ONLY incentive. Did you not read a word Scott Turow said??!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:25am

Re: Shakespeare is not the same at a torrent-loving couch potato
He'd end up in court quicker than you could say "mine all mine".

That is a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:34am

Re: Re:
Did you miss the part where I was talking about copyright?

Look, anyone who says copyright is the only incentive to create is wrong.

Anyone who says the assignment of a copyright shows that copyright is *not* an incentive to create is just as wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Shakespeare is not the same at a torrent-loving couch potato
That is not a fact. That is a hypothetical prediction.

Sorry. Sometimes I like to pick nits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
indieThing (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:49am

Re:
Excepth this blog ;) Seen by millions. Copied by quite a few as far as I can tell as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]

Revolving Door Between Gov't And Industry Continues: Pharma Lawyer Goes To USPTO As Gov't Financial Regulator Goes To Wall St.

Feds Appealing Ruling That Said Warrantless Wiretapping Was Illegal; Will This Backfire?

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

Did Scott Turow Keep The Copyright On His NY Times Op-Ed About The Importance Of Copyright?

from the questions,-questions dept

Reader Comments

Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Logical error

Logical error

Re:

Re:

Re: Logical error

Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

But what about his great-grandkids?

Mike Masnick supports copyright

Mike Masnick supports CENSORSHIP

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.

Shakespeare is not the same at a torrent-loving couch potato

Re: Re: Logical error

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Re: Shakespeare is not the same at a torrent-loving couch potato

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Shakespeare is not the same at a torrent-loving couch potato

Re:

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Friday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More