Authors Guild Shuts Itself Off From Public Criticism, As People Realize It Represents Publishers, Not Authors
from the front-group dept
We’ve written numerous times about Scott Turow during his time as head of the Author’s Guild, and the amazing thing to me is that despite the fact he’s been getting blistering criticism from a variety of people — including tons of authors — he never, ever seems to even acknowledge the points of his critics, but continues to just say the same debunked crap over and over again. Last week, for example, we did a point-by-point debunking of his error-laden, factually inaccurate and totally misleading op-ed in which he argued that pretty much everything on the internet was harming authors. I was gratified to see our debunking picked up widely — with many of the tweets in support of our response coming from authors (including a few best selling authors). It made me wonder what sort of organization Turow is running.
Best selling author Barry Eisler penned an interesting response to Turow on JA Konrath’s blog, in which he pointed out that Turow’s position has consistently been in favor of “Legacy Publishing,” (i.e., the big five publishers in NY) rather than authors. A similar reply from author David Gaughran pointed out that Turow seems to be so focused on propping up the legacy publishers that he directly called for an antitrust investigation into price-fixing by those publishers to be dropped, regardless of the facts of the case. Yes, even though such price fixing would harm authors, Turow immediately sided with the publishers. Incredible.
But, perhaps more telling is how the Authors Guild has now completely shut itself off from the outside world. Gaughrin also notes that right before Turow’s NYT op-ed, he had also published a silly blog post about Amazon buying Goodreads, and got torn apart in the comments for the post. But if you look at the Author’s Guild blog post about the NYT’s oped, you’ll see there are no comments and that “comments for this thread are now closed.” Eisler notes that it was not always this way. In fact, he had submitted a comment to the blog post, apparently with a link to my piece, saying:
“That Scott Turow refuses to respond to this demolition of his facts, his knowledge of the law, and even his baseline logic tells you all you need to know about his integrity. And about the true function of the “Authors Guild” of which he is president.”
Eisler received notification that his comment was “awaiting moderation,” but obviously that comment never ran, and instead, the Authors Guild shut down comments entirely. It appears that not only are they unwilling to respond to the large number of authors who are complaining about how ridiculous Turow’s position is, they also want to stick their hands over their eyes and ears to pretend it’s not even happening. That’s not leadership. That’s cowardice.
In the meantime, even the libraries are punching back. The American Library Association responded to Turow, “taking issue” with his op-ed and pointing out how Turow is wrong about libraries and about the law.
The failure to respond speaks volumes. And it says that the Authors Guild does not represent authors at all, but rather the legacy publishers, and a very small number of authors who succeeded under the old system. Turow’s actions have done massive damage to the perception and credibility of the Authors Guild. And the Guild’s decision to stop hearing from critics, especially authors, is quite telling about how it views the world. It’s amazing any modern author thinks it’s worthwhile to be a member of such an organization.
Filed Under: authors, copyright, culture, publishers, response, scott turow
Companies: authors guild
Comments on “Authors Guild Shuts Itself Off From Public Criticism, As People Realize It Represents Publishers, Not Authors”
“Turow’s actions have done massive damage to the perception and credibility of the Authors Guild.”
No they didn’t. Your argument assumes they had credibility to begin with, which they never did.
Re: Re:
I wasn’t even aware there WAS an Author’s Guild, let alone what whackjob was in charge of it. There’s a fantastic line from George Carlin about being a member of a union/guild/organization that I can’t seem to find at the moment. Pity that.
Re: Re: Re:
“Men Go Crazy In Congregation”
Is the "Author's Guild" the NRA of IP rights groups?
Turow’s bizarre overreaction to libraries, which have existed for millennia without destroying either books or authors, reminds me of the over reaching positions of the NRA. They’ll Take Turow’s DRM away from his cold dead hands…
(Just for those who don’t get allusions, that is a reference to the gun supporter’s slogan that they won’t give up their guns unless dead. It is not a threat against Turow, and it is ridiculous that I feel I have to point that obvious fact out preemptively.)
OT
West, Texas explosion
http://www.kwkt.com/news/caught-camera-fertilizer-plant-explosion-near-waco
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-17/massive-fertilizer-plant-explosion-shakes-texas
Re: OT
3 days in a row… some fishy shit is going on
Totally off-topic, yes, but if this gets declared as a terrorist act, I think we’re nearing a major event.
With the government passing a law under the radar allowing them to make major financial transactions without public disclosure, and now 3 sequential days of “terrorism” scares, I can’t help but feel like someone’s cooking some shit up.
Combine that with the shortage in ammunition due to DHS stockpiling it, and one might even suspect there’s about to be a revolutionary war.
Re: Re: OT
How did you manage to wander here from InfoWars?
Re: Re: Re: OT
How can you read Techdirt and not be a conspiracy theorist…
Re: Re: Re:2 OT
Because techdirt articles deal with facts and conspiracy theorists hate those.
Re: Re: Re:3 OT
Please review the definition of conspiracy before posting again.
Re: Re: Re:3 OT
The facts are; there is an ammo shortage, as evidenced by the stores that carry it, The DHS has purchased a billion bullets as evidenced by discussions of US Congress Members asking why.
Now, where is more than just unsubstantiated opinion from you?
Re: Re: Re:4 OT
Sorry, wrong reply button was meant for one up in thread.
Re: Re: Re:4 OT
Even assuming that both of the facts are true (I don’t know one way or they other), it’s still a huge leap to claim conspiracy based on them. Surely, you must have some kind of actual evidence.
Re: Re: Re: OT
you can’t buy 22LR ammo (THE most popular/used in the world) for love nor money…
(i managed to score some from a pawn shop, so the bob-tailed rats (rabbits), and bushy-tailed rats (squirrels), have quite a surprise in store for them when they come to visit my garden… Eat Lead, rat-bastards !
protip for squirrel hunting: don’t shoot into their nests, as the bodies will stay there and stink up the place… yep, i learned that the stinky way…)
say wha ? ? ?
how ’bout you swear to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, swabby…
fear of an increasingly fascistic Empire is NOT irrational, it is prudent…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: OT
one might even suspect there’s about to be a revolutionary war.
Who would be fighting whom? You think the NRA folks and the Occupy Wall Street folks are going to unite to fight a common enemy?
Re: Re: Re: When you make peaceful revolution impossible...
Well, OWS did learn the hard way that no-one listens to a peaceful demonstration.
Some of us think the guillotines are long overdue.
Re: Re: Re: OT
Each other?
Re: Re: Re: OT
I think since The DHS bought all the ammo you might consider them as one of the potential parties.
Re: Re: Re: OT
“You think the NRA folks and the Occupy Wall Street folks are going to unite to fight a common enemy?”
THAT is exactly what The They ™ are worried about; which is exactly why hot-button issues are CONTINUOUSLY foisted on us: The They ™ WANT US divided by stupid shit, so we don’t unite to string them up…
based on a true story…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: OT
Terrorist attack!!! Oh noooooooo!!!
What did we call explosions and other bad shit before everything was terrorism?
Re: Re: Re: OT
Farts?
Re: Re: OT
54,000lbs (20 tonnes) of anhydrous ammonia on site – it could very well have been an accident.
Re: Re: Re: OT
Exactly, as fertiliser = nitrogen compounds = stuff that goes boom, like ammonium nitrate.
Re: OT
This has happened before. We didn’t learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster
And the government was exempted from responsibility in that one.
Turow sure doesn’t represent this author. :
Once upon a time
In a land far away and long ago, the Author’s Guild was a respected representative of producing authors… Never more cried the Raven!
Re: Once upon a time
In those days, producing authors were those selected by the publishers, and so they had every incentive to support the publishers. It was find get accepted by a publisher to have any hope of making any money
I’ve often wondered if this were not the case as there are always brain trusts that are off trying to predict the future or near future events.
There has also been the suspicion that this was some how a way to prevent the gun owning public from purchasing more ammunition until they could get legislation passed.
Worse, it’s been in part blamed for why the bombs got the chance to go off in Boston as it has now been claimed that DHS got the money by redirection of funds to bomb handling functions. True or not I have no clue.
Sorry this is so off topic to the topic.
For the Author’s Guild to be a puppet of publishing instead of looking out for the authors, I guess it is in line with all the other crap we read day after day showing money changes minds over what the job responsibilities are. So how long before the authors themselves see Mr. Turow replaced for not doing his proper job?
Bwahahah. (wow. Something I really think is hilarious!)
Ever look on the wall of your local family physician for the certificates of membership or letters denoting good standing within? Or how about the certificate wall of your family lawyer or tax consultant? Were you impressed? Its OK to be so, as at this level, its always impressive to see documentation of industry commitment and recognition.
But what do they really mean? And. More importantly. Is this any benefit to the average citizen? Why do these industry groups exist and what is the definition of a special interest group?
An industry (special interest group) is created to further fulfill the specific interests/needs/profit of that exact group only. Even at the expense of other marginal (what a laugh) concerns. One might just as well say they are formed to totally and ruthlessly carry out the selfish profit desires of its members at others (usually the client/customer) expense entirely. Even if anyone (without money) dies in the gutter on a filthy street thats often an acceptable loss for a ‘successful’ industry group run for only profit motives.
There are exceptions to this of course but its classic that almost all public and private groups are eventually hijacked for profit or idealized religious reasons as noble or misguided as they might be.
Because of our cultural infantile state (most likely hampered by copyright laws inhibiting a healthy sharing of ideas through various formats in an eternal way) the effective intelligence level of a special interest industry group never raises above that of a three year old. A baby only wants and needs with no consideration for its environment.
Be it an Association, Guild, Union, Council, Chamber, Brain-trust, organization or whatever its all the same in regards that they all act in favor of the members. Despite whatever is written in their bylaws its classic human social nature that this/almost-every group does not act in favor of a non member. Of all the current organizations it might be conservative to say that 98% of special interest groups act against the average citizen.
An example of a benevolent public organization might be the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) of which considering their current vision and standing should be viable for another 10 or so years. (after that its reevaluation time).
An example of a most likely hijacked public group might be MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) of which they seem hellbent on violating/trampling every constitutional value in pursuit of their seemingly religious like affair with Prohibitionist attitudes. (just an opinion)
$$$
OK. that was the build up for a brief discussion on the Authors Guild.
The comment ?,Turow seems to be so focused on propping up the legacy publishers,? leads on to believe that the Authors Guild seems to be in the process of being hijacked by publishers. In what way does the author’s book volume sales and the multiplicative effects of popularity (and ultimately profit either directly or from sequels, other works or whatever value can be added) benefit from price fixing?
The removal of public response to his blog post is the hilarious part. Think of it; A special interest group ignoring public opinion? Except in lip service does any industry organization care, except in terms of profit and prestige, for anyone else’s opinion? ROFL! Its that funny!
Even more hilarious are the weak attempts to phrase/word such obvious industry orientated behavior that is not in favor of public opinion in terms that sound like they are in favor of public opinion. (it only sounds redundant)
The Authors Guild is acting like a classic special interest group. The three monkeys skit seems appropriate; Monkey see (hands over eyes), monkey hear (hands cover ears), monkey do (just sits there). Carry on business as usual. Nothing interesting here move along.
This childish behavior, placed under the light of adult real world concerns, would be quickly followed by a thorough intellectual spanking if not complete discrediting.
It seems that publisher contributions eclipse author membership fees so its hard to even justify the use of ?Author? in this special interest groups name. (is this correct? Or is there corruption involved? Hard to tell but it does not look good from this viewpoint.) Although its normal for a special interest group to choose a name that is misleading when the group faces significant public criticism it hardly makes it nice or polite. In this case it seems like a special interest hijacking.
There are so many issues with copyright law being abused for whatever industry profit or bureaucratic information gathering rationalizations its hard to elaborate in this already wordy essay. (read some of my earlier posts or more of TechDirt in general)
The root of the problem is that there is a perception crisis, outside more informed forums like TD, about what the public thinks of such industry organizations and who or how they derive their profits (from).
Reactionary;
There is nothing ‘conspiracy’ about a rational analysis based on normal human behavior. Its the reverse thats possible when anyone/organization tries to dampen public discussion.
Start a public campaign
Have authors get together to demand that the author’s guild rename itself to someone without ‘author’ in the title.
Re: Start a public campaign
not worried about that. most of us who do it for a living refer to ourselves as ‘writers’.
“…they also want to stick there hands over their eyes…”
Who missed that?
Oh, we gotta update the meme.
“Old man yells at the cloud.”
And cloud zaps old man with a thunderstorm.
Congratulations, Turow. You and your little corporation have joined the RIAA’s little club of “claiming to support the little guy but actually does jack shit about it”. Don’t worry, they saved a seat for you.
Re: Re:
Actually it’s more along the lines of “claiming to support the little guy while actively working to sabotage his success.”
Re: Re: Re:
And how is he hurting the little guy? Just because he loves DRM doesn’t mean anyone else has to use it. And whether you like it or not, his defense of copyright helps the little guy and gives them a better chance to make some money.
And he’s not insisting that people charge money. He’s okay with giving anything away or not copyrighting something.
Re: Re: Re: The Wealth of Nations and whatnot...
He’s hurting the little guy by propping up a cartel. Such gatekeepers control who can get published. They often require the talent to sell their soul in the process. They frequently also don’t even bother helping market the authors they abuse.
DRM is just a minor distraction.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was wondering when Mr. I-hate-libraries-with-a-feverish-passion would show up.
I have never seen the enforcement of copyright by a large organisation result in the direct increase of money given to a “little guy”. If you have an example proving so by all means show it. Won’t hold my breath, though. You couldn’t cite a source out of a paper bag.
Re: Re:
“Congratulations, Turow. You and your little corporation have joined the RIAA’s little club of “claiming to support the little guy but actually does jack shit about it”. Don’t worry, they saved a seat for you.”
If you made sense, you’d be dangerous, boy.
can someone please tell me the difference between the way this guy is acting, the way the ‘Authors Guild’ is acting, compared to the entertainment industries? there is no concern or consideration here for authors which is exactly the same situation put out by the movie and music industries. they continuously spout about how they are fighting ‘piracy’ on behalf of artists, but no artist is ever reimbursed from the fines the industries ‘win’ in cases. all the money is always kept by the companies and the execs. the authors have realised that they are not being represented and that they are not being reimbursed (in fact, there are numerous cases each year where artists take the labels and studios to court for failing to pay the artists what they should!). what needs to happen now is for the music and movie artists to realise that their interests are not being represented by their labels etc and all monies are going anywhere and everywhere except where it is said to be going and to whom it is supposed to be going. wake up and smell the coffee guys and gals. as per usual, you are being filled with lies and bullshit. stop trusting these arse holes and go the right way, not the execs way. you will be better off, better thought of and i doubt if you will ever regret it!
Grammar police!
For shame:
“they also want to stick there hands over their eyes”
their*
Thanks for yet another great article, Mike!
As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
Yes, are some persistent trolls on the Turow blog repeatedly contradicting. Big deal. As they claim to be writers, it’s just easy gainsaying blather. But here’s a somewhat typical thoughtful comment (emphasis added):
Amazon is in the consolidating rapid-growth stage: it’ll soon be the Wal-Mart of publishing, without competition, wreaking damage all through the realm it controls. So while authors are certainly making out NOW, the future is certain to be just a replacement of monopoly, not any lasting change. And since Amazon is doing monopoly right in an era without DOJ anti-trust enforcement, it’ll be the most tightly controlling monopoly yet seen. — Now, why can’t you kids see that merely replacing monopolies is a bad idea, that what’s needed is a ferment kept up by constant regulation. Action should be taken NOW to limit Amazon’s (monopolistic, buying up a book review site) growth, before like banks it’s “too big to punish”.
Now, talk about totally un-self-aware! This fits Mike EXACTLY: “he never, ever seems to even acknowledge the points of his critics, but continues to just say the same debunked crap over and over again.” — I’ve been chasing Mike around for a couple years now, but he’s responded to me about twice with easy contradictions since his epic fail in this item where I made him eat crow:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brains-stop-zero.shtml
Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
Reducing copyright terms would go a long way towards monopoly busting.
Not only could they not just sit around with amazon getting fatter of years old works it improves access of works for the poor while still letting authors/publishers remain competitive
Re: Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
Wrong. They go toward supporting the network’s monopoly. Destroying copyright only helps Big Search and the shopping monoliths.
Copyright is only a monopoly over one person’s work. It’s like saying that a person is given a monopoly over their workproduct by the anti-slavery laws.
People can and do produce competing products all of the time.
Re: Re: Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
Expansive copyright gives companies standing to sue new artists. It interferes with the creation of new works and even gives people the wrongful idea that they can own a genre or a trope.
Expansive copyright gives people like Harlan Ellison the idea they have standing to sue over simple ideas poorly executed decades ago.
Re: Re: Re:2 As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
used to like his work when i was a sci fi wonk as a kid…
now, he is just another entitled legacy-leech who wants to lockdown the world…
same with jimmy buffet, had more than a few of his albums (more or less mandatory in florida), but when he went trademark apeshit on anyone using ‘his’ parrotheads crap, margaritaville crap, etc, i said goombye to his muzak…
fucker, not enough he is nephew of The warren buffet, but also a former drug-smuggling drunkard and thief, NOW gets all pseudo-moral on people when he is being ‘cheated’ out of pennies BY FANS ? ? ?
fuck him, too…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
shopping monoliths
What do you have against Target?
Re: Re: Re:2 As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
Probably nothing. It’s just a Target he can aim at.
Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
I’ve been chasing Mike around for a couple years now,…
No you haven’t been. You’ve been yapping at his ankles (as a guest of the blog Mike pays for, no less) for years.
Seriously, Blue, you come off like the football coach filling in as a substitute teacher for the Advanced Placement Calculus class really.
Re: Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
If you think about it, it does make sense he’s been “chasing Mike.”
I mean, the careful craft of blue’s repressed bromance notes scream unrequited love.
Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
Monopolies in and of themselves do not constitute antitrust, only when the monopoly situation is abused. Also short of competing there is nothing anyone can do about Amazon growing growing their business, its not illegal.
So tell us Professor Blue what is the maximum size businesses should be allowed to be? How do you measure, square footage, number of employees, estimated worth, profit margins, total profits some convoluted combination of multiple factors?
Re: As usual, Misleading Mike reads only what fits his template.
…but he’s responded to me about twice with easy contradictions since his epic fail in this item where I made him eat crow:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brain s-stop-zero.shtml
Lol. Back on article you linked to Mike says this to you:
This is true now as it was then, because when I looked back through those threads, it looked like Mike wiped the floor with you. Just sayin’
How does Authors Guild elect its President?
Does the Authors Guild really have a meaningful number of members? How do they elect a president? How often? If Turow doesn’t represent the views of the guild, then can’t he be replaced?
Re: How does Authors Guild elect its President?
It has about 8,000 members. There are about 100,000 authors in the US. So, no.
For the second time I (mostly) agree with OOTB. (Ring the bells. Not a pun.)
?Amazon is in the consolidating rapid-growth stage? Correct IMHO! What other on-line firm has this same vision and growth potential? Few if none! In a way they deserve profits from their insight and investment. In other ways its pointless to stop competitors from entering same marketplace.
?Wal-Mart of publishing? Very insightful. Furthermore your comment on economic advantage (of such) is good. Monopolies are bad. Stomp on them.
?an era without DOJ anti-trust enforcement? Yes. The DoJ has absconded from its obvious judiciary duties of removing monopoly from consumer worry. Historically this is normal (read as judicial ignorance/corruption?) in that every 40-50 years the public intervenes with reason and constitutionality.
?it’ll be the most tightly controlling monopoly yet seen.? Of which I quote (from the Humphrey Bogart movie Key Largo);
Johnny Rocco (a famous fictional Chicago mobster, in a movie, with Humphrey Bogart as Frank McCloud and crew weathering out a hurricane on Key Largo) speaks;
(Quote)
?I bet you two or three years, we get Prohibition back. This time we make it stick.,?
?The trouble was, before,… too many guys wanted to be top dog.?
?That was the trouble. One mob gets to massacring another. The papers play it up? big. Big, see??
-?So what happens? -So what??
?The papers play it up big, and the public. . . . . .gets the idea that Prohibition’s no good. That if they can get rid of it. . . .?
?Next time, it’ll be different. We learned our lesson, all right. Next time, the mobs’ll get together.?
(end of quote)
Corruption is always a legitimate worry and monopoly is a justifiable fear while conspiracy is a real economic horror. The rest might be conjecture.
Just gotta say ...
Turow’s a writer. Writers sell publishing rights to publishers. Writers’ competition is other writers.
Why’s the Writers Guild not named the Publishers Guild, and why is Turow (a writer) the president of the Publishers Guild?
Conflict of interest much?
Why do ca. 92,000 USA writers not want to be members of the Publishers Guild, and what’s wrong with the 8,000 writers who are?
Three years later… The Author’s Guild lost. Again.
bob is gone. out_of_the_blue is gone. Unless they’re using VPNs and pseudonyms (filthy, filthy CFAA-violating pirates!), in which case they still lose.
Ah, life is good.