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."
Looking into this - they didn't just take her recipe. Bad summary as usual. They took her article, and they've apparently done this many times. They could easily be pushed to bankruptcy by the lawsuits coming their way, and that idiotic email is going to be the first exhibit at every one of them.
Do you have ESP?
Exactly. Mod parent up.
Recipes do not fall under copyright (at least the list of ingredients and quantities). They can't directly copy your layout and can't copy any artwork or photography associated with the recipe, but the recipe itself is fair game.
Being on the web has nothing to do with public domain. It should be obvious to anyone that something being on the internet does not make it public domain. Such a claim is beyond ignorant.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
In this case it wasn't just a recipe it was an entire article accompanied by discussion of early apple "pies", with citations to other research.
Here's the original article: http://www.godecookery.com/twotarts/twotarts.html
Where is a $1.5M verdict when you need one?
Seriously, though, I'll bet half the folks complaining on Facebook have illegally downloaded music themselves.
Downloaded music, yes. Turned around and sold what they downloaded, no.
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 Slashdot on the side of the company or the author? Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.
Neither. Copyright law isn't as broke as the justice system that overcompensates for infringement. The infringee in this case asked for $130 donation to a college, a very reasonable sum. Patent law is broken, but the only problem with copyright isn't the concept. Copyright laws are what prevent Cisco from just lifting the Linux kernel and using it without contributing back the changes. Copyright laws themselves are not bad and protect authors. It is the idea that a corporation can own a copyright and have it extended into infinity (See Disney). Or infringement can be punished with a financial death sentence (See RIAA). Even those that pirate aren't against copyrights. Hell, they just don't care.
What is exceptional is that the magazine publisher had come to the conclusion that everything on the internets was public domain. That clearly indicates that they likely have an entire business built on infringing copyrights. Using other peoples work to make a profit. This is very different than hitting thepiratebay to get a copy of Stargate Universe.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Well, assuming they're not behind a pay wall, they are in the public domain.
That is not what “public domain” means. Just because something is freely available to the public does not mean it is in the public domain.
The original website had a © notice at the bottom. It is not public domain.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
As someone who works in media, I'm not one who agrees with the "It's OK to pirate as long as you don't sell it" philosophy. Perhaps I'm in the /. minority, but I don't have any pirated software/media on my computer.
Now I'm not here to be on a high horse and tell the pirates how much they suck even if I thought that, which I don't. And I'm certainly not going to defend the RIAA, which needs to be smacked down hard.
Is piracy copyright infringement? Yes. You can come up with all the justifications you want about how it's not stealing. And you're right. It's not. It's copyright infringement, and I do think that people deserve to be paid for their work. I don't work for free at my job, and I don't expect you to work for free either, even if you record a song I really want to put on my mp3 player. No matter how you justify it, it's still wrong, just like I'm wrong when I speed even though I justify it by saying that everyone else is doing it.
Copyright infringement is wrong, and illegal. Should the RIAA be allowed to direct the prosecution of pirates? No. Should they be allowed to have what amounts to their own police force that conducts raids to catch the pirates? Certainly not. Should you be fined 65 grand per file? Hell no. They sell them for a buck. You owe them a buck. You then owe damages totaling whatever your state's damages for a misdemeanor are set to as your punishment. This is all gonna amount to around 500 bucks at worst. That's plenty. It's a deterrent without being ridiculously over the top.
But my original point stands. Piracy is wrong. It's more wrong to turn around and sell what you pirated. It's even more wrong to do it and then suggest that the creator of the content owes you money for the privilege of having her work stolen and published without permission.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Copyright is about whether or not a person has a right to make a copy of something. By downloading a song, you are creating a new copy. If you are not given the right to do this, it is copyright infringement.
Whether or not the concept of copyright is beneficial to society is a completely different argument, and I personally agree that the current limits on length of copyright need to be revisited. However, downloading music that is still under copyright without the copyright holder's permission is blatant copyright infringement, and a violation of the law.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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."