Tuesday, September 2, 2014
 

The Constitution’s framers had it right. Soviet-style repression is not necessary to diminish authors’ output and influence. Just devalue their copyrights.

I’ve gotten a few e-mails asking I haven’t commented on Scott Turow’s op-ed article last weekend for the NY Times. I was. I just hadn’t gotten around to it.

Turow’s comments speak for themselves, and they’re pretty much on-point. I particularly like this part of his argument:

For many academics today, their own copyrights hold little financial value because scholarly publishing has grown so unprofitable. The copyrights of other authors, by contrast, often inhibit scholars who want to quote freely from those works or use portions in class. Thus, under the cri de coeur that “information wants to be free,” some professors and others are calling for copyright to be curtailed or even abandoned. High-minded slogans aside, these academics are simply promoting their own careers over the livelihoods of other writers.

Ouch! I think we all know who he’s referencing, and I have a few I could mention here as well (but I won’t). What do you think? Does copyright still create an incentive for authors to write, or a disincentive?

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1

(comments are closed)

 
 
Legal

Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.
 

Switch to our mobile site