Slashdot Mirror
Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain
Isarian writes with a story, as reported on Gawker and many other places, that "Cooks Source Magazine is being raked over the coals today as word spreads about its theft of a recipe from Monica Gaudio, a recipe author who discovered her recipe has been published without her knowledge. When confronting the publisher of the offending magazine, she was told, 'But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it!' In addition to the story passing around online, Cooks Source Magazine's Facebook page is being overwhelmed with posts by users glad to explain copyright law to the wayward publisher."
What's this thing at the bottom of my page?
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc."
It's alright if the copyright infringement is committed by a media company?
More from the copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Do you have ESP?
Their Facebook page is still up though. And people are using it to collate other stolen articles. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238 Also, someone found a Paula Deen recipe that was stolen, and notified Paula - who has contacted her legal department.
...is getting hammered right now. Like, several comments a second. Fascinating to watch a meltdown in real time. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748
Well, if you had read the article or followed the links, you'd see that the article in question isn't just a recipe. It's a researched article about the history of apple pie, including two medieval recipes, with commentary and a bibliography. No question that it's more than a list of ingredients with instructions.
Slashdot: "Pirate Bay Back Online"
Zealot: "Yes! Take that, MPAA and RIAA. Copyright and intellectual property don't exist. Piracy isn't theft." (+5 Insightful)
Rabble-rouser: "But the GPL is a copyright license. GPL code is intellectual property. Doesn't anybody care about artists getting ripped off?" (-1 Flamebait)
Slashdot: "GPL Code Stolen By Some Company"
Zealot: "Why doesn't the FSF sue them for millions of dollars? This is an outrage. How dare they steal code, those thieves." (+5 Insightful)
Rabble-rouser: "You realize you have two contradictory, self-serving positions, right?" (-1 Troll)
Yeah. Some people have claimed that Slashdot's response is being hypocritical, however, the key differences are:
MPAA/RIAA sues individual who downloads a song for personal use for $insane_amount per track/video. Person in question did not engage in any commercial activity related to the downloaded item.
Some magazine steals a woman's article (not just the recipe, but the whole article word for word) and commences to use it as part of a commercial product (their magazine). Original author requests a $130 donation to a college and is denied.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The title of this submission should have read "Cooks Source". Cooks is a completely different magazine.
as how they responded. They were rude and insulting and she just asked for a donation to a local college. To respond in the way they did anyone would be upset and, out of principal, take legal action. They could have just said, sure we'll make the $130 donation and be happy, but they had to insult her instead. The magazine should donate 10 times the amount and fire the editor.
What is even worse is the discussions that are going on the magazines Facebook page. Someone posted her actual address (taken down) to homophobic AIDS filled rants. I know it might seem odd but maybe the editor legimately thought the Internet was public domain and is now paying for her mistake. But the personal attacks is just childish
As for Disney extending copyright on Mickey Mouse, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that if they're still making money off of Mickey Mouse? I've never heard a convincing argument why Mickey Mouse should be taken away from them if he's still a viable property. The original copyright lengths were decided in an era before long-term mass media, and laws change to reflect changing circumstances.
And what's the convincing argument that copyright should be extended to a period long enough to protect Disney's assets? Why should they retain exclusive cultural domain over something Walt Disney created over 80 years ago? "Because they can make money from it" is not a sufficient reason in my opinion.
It seems to me that there has to be a reasonable limit. The protections of copyright exist to provide incentive to creators to make new work, to give them the protections they need to profit from it. But if an artwork rises in prominence to the point where it is well remembered a lifetime later - I think that's beyond what any single company should have the ability to control. That's a cultural institution.
Without some kind of hard limit, exclusivity extends perpetually, and culture itself becomes a thing subject to domination by those with the greatest back-catalog of assets. Any new work becomes subject to scrutiny: does this new song use any bits of melody that can be traced back to another artist's work? The barest traces of influence become grounds to demand tribute to the media god who, in times scarcely remembered, created something that happened to turn out to be a hit. There has to be a limit. And of course there is a limit, except for the fact that they keep changing it every time it threatens Disney's assets.
I don't want a system that so heavily favors established powers. New players should have the power to create without fear of being litigated out of existence because they were influenced by a piece of work that influenced a huge chunk of the world's population for generations.
Bow-ties are cool.
The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, three hundred years ago, and formed the foundation of US copyright law, with some sections used verbatim. This Statute stipulated copyright terms of 14 years, renewable for a second 14 if the author was still alive. Within this broader context, it seems clear that the concept of a limited copyright term meant "limited" in terms of something within a human scale, and, importantly, bounded by the life of the original author. Instead, what we have now is a de facto unlimited copyright term, with copyrights held not by the original author, but rather by faceless and essentially immortal corporations.
Bringing up 5000 years as a "limited" copyright term, while pedantically correct, is completely irrelevant within this context of copyright on a human scale. And, within this context, Disney (among many others) has egregiously overstepped any morally or historically defensible bounds.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
On their facebook forum, their magazine has been deconstructed to show where all of their content came from. Its not just recipes, but articles and pictures as well
For example, the image at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=439516851748&set=a.439514776748.238553.196994196748 of their magazine is a copy of http://www.weightwatchers.com.au/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=38441. This is not a recipe.