Cooks Source Magazine Apologizes — Sort Of

taco8982 writes "Cooks Source has published a statement in response to the uproar over claiming the web is public domain a couple of weeks ago. While it does contain an apology, I'll leave it to individual readers to determine how apologetic it actually is." It also seems that the publisher has decided to cease publication entirely.

Comments

But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone on slashdot always says that information wants to be free. /sarcasm

Anyway, I think this whole copyright problem comes from Christianity and from the thing like inventing printing press. Trough history the western world and Christianity have had even wars because of copyright issues.

If you look at Asia and buddhism, it really isn't an issue there. Buddhism promotes spreading information and accepting people the way they are, even going as far as defining four different genders for humans - man, woman, ladyboy and hermafrodites. It is really a culture that accepts things and lives by karma's law, compared to western culture. The same is true for wanting people to learn information, because what you do to other people is what you would do to god and you could also be on the other side in another life.

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Bulllll Shit.

Re:But but

[stoned_hamster]

*through history but you're right. In early Christianity the Bible was written only in Latin, and translating it was forbidden. Some guy (i forget his name, sorry) translated it into German and English (not sure about the English) and spread it around He was pretty much ostracized for doing this. After he died, they dug up his body, nailed it to a cross, and set it on fire.

Re:But but

[IBBoard]

That "some guy" wouldn't happen to be Martin Luther, "founder" of the Protestant section of Christianity, would it?

Re:But but

[Dunbal]

Oh god, I do hope you're joking.

Re:But but

[WrongSizeGlass]

That "some guy" wouldn't happen to be Martin Luther, "founder" of the Protestant section of Christianity, would it?

Hmmm, that name seems to ring a bell. No matter, his 'lifetime +70 years' copyright on it has got to be expired by now, right?

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Buddhism promotes spreading information and accepting people the way they are, even going as far as defining four different genders for humans - man, woman, ladyboy and hermafrodites.

the and Greeks had ladyboys too. 20/20 hindsight shows they were raped children. Sicko.

It is really a culture that accepts things and lives by karma's law, compared to western culture.

Really? A culture that doesn't believe in karma doesn't live by it? Next you'll say that westerners don't eat tiger penises for morning wood.

Re:But but

[delinear]

The whole reason we have copyright is because information wants to be free. If you could put your information out in the world and not have people want to take it away and do their own thing, you wouldn't need copyright. There's no conflict for someone to acknowledge information wants to be free AND that we need copyright (AND that current copyright is too far-reaching). Maybe in your mind everyone on the planet hold an extremely polarised opinion on every topic, but most people are realists and live with compromises (not to mention /. is a wealth of differing opinion, just because a bunch of people think there should be no copyright at all, doesn't mean you won't find plenty of people who think a reasonable period of copyright with fair use is bad).

Re:But but

[PrinceAshitaka]

Zwingli in Switzerland started the protestant moevement of Christianity, Martin Luther was a Johnny come lately.

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

A wise poster once said, "Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. Information doesn't want shit." Information inherently doesn't want anything. But yeah, some people just naturally want to share some shit, and naturally horde some other shit. It has more to do with general human nature than anything else.

Re:But but

[RJHelms]

But when was the Bible not translated? Ulfilas translated it to Gothic in the 4th century, and there are English and French translations from later in the middle ages. A quick wiki search shows up that the ban on translation was made by Pope Gregory IX in the 13th century, and it doesn't seem to have stopped much.

Maybe "translating" really means "owning" and people didn't own it because it was prohibitively expensive until the printing press. If you can't afford a book, what does it matter what language it's in?

Also, what does this have to do with TFA? I'll be quiet now.

Re:But but

[ehrichweiss]

"In early Christianity the Bible was written only in Latin"

That would be the New Testament, the Old Testament was Hebrew, IIRC.

Re:But but

[s122604]

No actually it wouldn't

I believe the poster is referring to William Tyndale

Re:But but

[mwvdlee]

Information doesn't want to be free.
People want other people's information to be free.

Re:But but

[CRCulver]

The New Testament was written in Greek. Fairly amateur translations into Latin came a couple of hundred years later, and then eventually St. Jerome made the standard Latin translation called the Vulgate.

Re:But but

[vortechs]

Erm...actually, the New Testament was written in Greek...then translated to Latin.

Re:But but

[eleuthero]

He's conflating the two. Luther was buried and not later exhumed (the ruling powers in the area stayed Lutheran).

Re:But but

[eleuthero]

Right - by the time the prohibition came, it was an attempt to maintain control of the political arm of a body that its members increasingly felt should be focused on the religious side... supporting the secular political authority (be it independently or through direct interaction--this last reflecting the early Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican positions, the former looking towards more modern expressions).

Re:But but

[CRCulver]

One could add the Georgian and Armenian translations, the Aramaic translation called the Pesshita, the translation of Ss. Cyril and Methodius and their successors into Slavonic, the translation into Komi by St Stephan of Perm, etc. etc. That the urban myth of "No Christians could ever read the Bible in their native languages, because the big bad Church would kill you" persists is sad.

Re:But but

[eleuthero]

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Latin came later (along with various other translations--Syriac, Coptic, etc.). If you look here, about an 8th of the way down, there is a heading "What is the NET Bible?" that looks at where the original texts came from (I figured an actual Bible translation's site might be better than wikipedia in this case).

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, I get really tired of 'information wants to be free'. It's as poorly worded as 'global warming'. The truth of the matter is that information can't be owned. One can have rights to information, but if it ain't tangible, it's imaginary.

Re:But but

[mcgrew]

Not quite. Copyright was originally to protect authors from publishers, and publishers who'd made deals with authors from other publishers. Note the US Constitution says "authors and inventors" can have a limited time monopoly, not publlishers. Nobody dreamed that some day everyone would be a publisher.

But I agree -- we need copyright, but the terms are WAY too long and fair use should be protected. However, I personally don't believe that bits in a computer should be considered "tangible form", as there's nothing permanent like there is with books, LPs, CDs, DVDs, film, printed photos, etc. I don't think MP3s should be considered tangible, and you should be able to freely share your digital media. Authors can make money on real books, musicians can make money from CDs.

Re:But but

[SpockLogic]

Hmmm, that name seems to ring a bell. >

That would be Quasimodo, no?

Re:But but

[Gilmoure]

Lucky thing his name was Luther. He fit right in.

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

The New Testament was primarily written in Greek. The Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew. Latin and anything later was a translation.

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you are saying that a musician can make money by selling ONE CD? Since your argument is that MP3s should be OK to share we only need one person to buy the CD. Same thing with the books - if one person buys it and converts it (whether by scanning, typing, whatever) to digital format then nobody else needs to buy it. I'll give you the fact that some small number of people will still want a physical item - there are some folks like that here on slashdot. But, in general the statements you have made above say that you want stuff for free but the creators can sell ONE (or a hundred or a thousand) of each - but then the rest are free. I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope really a pissed off German monk went against GOD and translated the bible so that all the unwashed masses could read it.

IT was not floated down to earth by an angel and handed to John smith's indian ancestors who then floated across to europe as some of you nutty whackjob christians believe.

Re:But but

[camperdave]

The books of the bible were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). By the second century BC, all of the Old Testament had already translated into Greek. As Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, the bible was translated into Latin. In the early 1500s Martin Luther translated the bible from Greek (not Latin) into German. William Tyndale also starts a translation from Greek to English at about the same time. (Note: Neither translates from the Latin version.)

Luther was not merely ostracized, he was excommunicated. However, they did not dig up his body and burn it.

Re:But but

[dosius]

You're conflating Martin Luther (German) with William Tyndale (English), and I think you got a little bit of John Wycliffe mixed in there for good measure xD.

-uso.

Re:But but

[Defenestrar]

Information is definitely not imaginary. People walk around synthesizing extremely complex molecules based on an information storage and expression system (DNA, translation, & etc...). Logic gates have measurable states, computer storage media have observable information, and Schrodinger's bloody cat dies (or not) when you look at it you insensitive gorgon! Heck, even imaginary numbers aren't imaginary - they can have some extremely profound effects in the physical world (blow up anything recently with an un-dampened oscillation from a controller's set point).

Information can even be owned (I can write something down right now on using my pen on my paper and I own it; completely). The catch is that information can not be shared between humans without copying. The fidelity of that copy depends on the sharing mechanism and efficiency of the recording medium. If one hears a song on the radio it's stored in the mind, most will have an average recall but a musical expert or savant may be able to sit down at an instrument and give a very accurate rendition after a single listen. Every observation of information propagates a copy of that information with the observer. Information, as a real, physical, and non-imaginary construct, is also subject to the second law and thus tends to undergo decay. All of the above still goes for computer media - generally with much higher fidelity copying, to utilize information it must be shared (copied) between long term storage, caches, transmission, processors, displays, and to the user.

Re:But but

[robot256]

I think the point is that in the Internet Age information is not something that can be sold, period. Services and physical media can be provided for a fee, but information itself is no longer--and maybe never was--a product to be bought or sold. People who want to contribute to support an artist will do so however they can, but they will be discouraged if the only avenue is through an extortionist publisher. People who don't want to contribute will obtain the information however they want, and no business model will change that. The two activities can no longer be exclusively linked.

My gold standard at this point is, for all its woes, National Public Radio. Their sole purpose is to create content to be distributed freely. They are funded directly by the subset of their audience willing and able to contribute, but bear no grudge to those unwilling or unable, and simply work within the budget society is willing to provide. They take in revenue from selling physical media, yes, but uncompensated donations make up a much larger chunk. The audience is the employer whom they must please, not the product whom they must sell to advertisers. In my mind, this is what content producers should be.

Re:But but

[painandgreed]

Information doesn't want to be free.

The second law of thermodynamics disagrees with you.

Re:But but

[pthisis]

Petr Chelický had Zwingli beat by decades. Of course, Wycliffe got there a century earlier than Petr.

And various other small-p protestant movements go back almost as far as the Catholic Church--Valentinus, Basilides, and others were writing schismatic texts in the 2nd century AD--Valentinus being not just theologically different, but also reformationist in the sense of being opposed to institutional corruption in the Church (e.g. nepotism in the appointment of bishops). A massive schism resulted between the Catholic Church and the early protestant Gnostics. Many reforms in the Church, numerous theological responses*, and even ecumenical councils were responses to early reformers.

Heck, even the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds used by modern Protestant (and Catholic) churches are themselves repudiations of earlier protestant sects--the whole "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten..." creed was an attempt to stamp out early Christian sects with different theological interpretations than those endorsed by Rome.

*e.g. Irenaeus' "Against Heresy" c. 180 AD and "Philosophumena" of Hippolytus (trad. Origen)

Re:But but

[mcgrew]

Information "wants to be free" like water "wants" to be free; water seeks a lower level. Drape a wet rag over a kitchen sink dangling in the water, and it will travel up and drip off the other side. This is what's meant by "information wants to be free". It's the same thing as "if you want to keep a secret, don't tell anyone."

When information isn't free, neither are you. Note that you can't copyright information, you can only copyright your own explanation of the information. It's perfectly legal to take an AP article, reword it, and post it in your own words.

Re:But but

[mcgrew]

Schrodinger's bloody cat dies (or not) when you look at it

It always dies when hawking looks at it! No uncertainty principle for him!

Information can even be owned (I can write something down right now on using my pen on my paper and I own it; completely).

Only until someone else sees it. You own the paper, but not the information on it. Copyright does not confer ownership, it gives a "limited time" monopoly on your expression of the information.

Re:But but

[HiThere]

It's the right metaphor, and properly understood is true.

If you go all literal minded, then it should only seem silly, not meaningful. I'm not really sure where people get the idea that it describes the world behaving the way they want to. Magic, probably. Or fairy tales.

When you think of the computer, or fire, as your servant, then you are using the same though pattern as those you take an intentional stance towards information. But the statement as a metaphor, without an understood intentional stance, is a true statement. (OTOH, people seem quite attached to the intentional stance, so I suppose that it's a metaphor that endangers proper understanding.)

Re:But but

[mcgrew]

Cory Doctorow has proven you wrong by putting ALL of his books online, for free, at craphound.com. He credits his status as a New York Times best seller to this. Nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have starved (or gone into another line of work) from obscurity.

If your logic were right, nobody could ever sell books to anybody but the library, since anybody can go to the library and read all the books they want for free, in the comfort of their own home. You can also get CDs and DVDs there as well.

Had it not been for the free library, I would not have bought that shelf full of Asimov.

One publisher who thought book piracy was costing him money commissioned a study to find out how much money it was costing him. Books usually take a few weeks to hit the internet, and when the study came back he was surprised and amazed that rather than a drop in sales, when the book hit the internet there was a sales spike. In short, piracy INCREASES sales.

Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Information doesn't want to be free.

The second law of thermodynamics disagrees with you.

You're an idiot. Please don't post here anymore.

Re:But but

[northstarlarry]

Many people want their own information to be free. Ever heard of a blog? Ever heard of self-publishing a book? Ever heard of Linux, for crying out loud? Lots and lots of people are enthusiastic about and made happy by sharing what they know. Often a person just wants acknowledgement for the presentation of the information.

Some people do make their living by producing information in such a way that induces other people to trade money or valuables for access to it, but that is by no means the norm, the natural state of things, or historically, the main way that information is distributed.

Re:But but

[index0]

Then don't tell anyone about this information you want to own.

Re:But but

[metaforest]

/. -> NOISE... therefore I filter and derive part of a curve that represents /. reality. It is not real reality. It is just a point on that curve. Often it is an outlier.

YAY !! ANOTHER COPYRIGHT INFRINGER BITES THE DUST

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay ! ! ! !

Opps, I doodie

Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[eldavojohn]

Look I think the lady jumped the gun but I really got a good laugh out of this guy's line of excuses before actually getting around to apologizing.

Its sad really. The problem is that I have been so overworked and stretched that when this woman -- Monica -- contacted me, I was on deadline and traveling at the rate of 200 mile a day for that week (over 900 in total for that week), which I actually told her, along with a few other "nice" things, which she hasnt written about.

We're all busy, man. I slept four hours last night after spending dinner out at a birthday party and coming home to try to write 2,000 words for NaNoWriMo. If I now build a spider that scrapes all of cookssource.com and I offer it up in a torrent, are you going to excuse me because I was too busy at the time to realize that I was infringing on your work? Do you think that Monica f rollicks through the flowers all day long?

She doesn't say that she was rude, she doesn't say that I agreed (and did) to pay her.

Isn't that weird how people get rude when they unexpectedly find their work being used to sell magazines? And then when you say that you'll negotiate a price later you think they'd just clam up and be happy they even got something! Well, that's how your excerpt sounded, anyway. Look she quoted you as saying:

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!

Yes after that statement, it's clear you totally meant to pay her. So if she's quoting you out of context, why didn't you include excerpts from her initial contact to show how rude or out of line she was?

leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida -- out of work

I am just sobbing with sympathy right now. Please, please take all my money and give it to this poor man who apparently made an imprudent relocation. Listen, my father has to go on unemployment from time to time ... so can I go around using New York Times articles to sell my magazine?

... when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.

I don't care if she wanted the money for heroin! It's her work and you used it without her permission. You're exhibiting the attitude that cooks should not be reimbursed for their recipes! Then because she's using this money for college you hope to garner more sympathy because you live in a small town with high unemployment?! So by that logic, I guess Nigerian 419 scammers are saints?

The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. We have never been a great money-maker even with all the good we do for businesses.

Look, you just outlined how poorly your operation is being ran and used that as an excuse to use other people's work without permission. Maybe it is time for you to move on to something else. It's nice that you are guilt tripping everyone into thinking that they were 'the final straw' to kill you.

If you want to be in publishing, you should study copyright law. If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes and -- seemingly -- the internet, then you should become a lawyer and work to change that. You might want to take some business courses too if you think small magazines deserve to survive in this environment, maybe apply at Columbia University? br>
Your proposition that "every time someone has a bad day, it's okay for them to use anyone's material online" is laughable and would result in pure chaos. Enjoy your own self-created chaos. You did it. You. Take some responsibility and stop whining with long drawn out excuses and guilt trips.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[WrongSizeGlass]

Thank you to all our readers, thanks to all our advertisers and writers... and to everyone who has been supportive and who has been a part of Cooks Source. To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance.

The gaul of this woman to end her sorry-assed not-really-an-appology by once again blaming the woman she stole from. It also appears she lifted material from Disney, Martha Stewart and many others. Why isn't she blaming them?

"If none of you had ever put stuff on the www's I would have never been so tired as to steal it and mock you when you called me on it."

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Then because she's using this money for college

She didn't want the money for HER college. She asked that a donation be made to the Columbia School of Journalism.

If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes

Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted.

That said, what was lifted wasn't a recipe, but an article discussing the history of apple pie, which happened to include two archaic recipes for apple pie as illustrations of the changes.

Note, for the record, that the lady who you suspect jumped the gun discovered that her article had been used without her permission did so when a friend contacted her to congratulate her on getting her article published.

Note further that checking Cooks Source on the web showed that virtually every article in the magazine was lifted from some other source without permission.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes after that statement, it's clear you totally meant to pay her. So if she's quoting you out of context, why didn't you include excerpts from her initial contact to show how rude or out of line she was?

I love how "I was taken out of context" now means "I said something I shouldn't have and now have no other recourse but to either apologize or blame the person for calling me out on my error, but definitely won't do the former".

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lesson to be learned: It is easier to ask for forgiveness when you're caught than to ask for permission in advance. You do have to actually ask for forgiveness though.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Jesus_666]

The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. We have never been a great money-maker even with all the good we do for businesses.

I find it somewhat amusing that this publication was built around commercial copyright infringement, thus most likely had few costs besides those of publication... and still made little money. But was somehow important to "businesses".

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible to give this a score of 6 or 7? Please?

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

The gaul of this woman ...

Any relation to Asterisk?

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Kyont]

The gaul of this woman

Yes, the French are really just incorrigible that way!

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Sockatume]

In fact, the "apology" states that they usually get their content by copying it from whatever cookbooks publishers send them to review!

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, this part in particular:

"[...] thanks to all our advertisers and writers... [...] To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance."

She clearly still doesn't get that this woman wasn't one of her writers, she was someone whose work was plagiarised. If she'd never never been caught she wouldn't give a damn!

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[mwvdlee]

Its sad really. The problem is that I have been so overworked and stretched that when this woman -- Monica -- contacted me, I was on deadline and traveling at the rate of 200 mile a day for that week (over 900 in total for that week), which I actually told her, along with a few other "nice" things, which she hasnt written about.

He wasn't too busy when he took the time to copy the recipe.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[tixxit]

Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted.

"Recipes" can't be copyrighted in that you can't sue a chef for making your recipe. However, the actual written text of a recipe can have copyrights and you can definitely sue someone for publishing, word-for-word, your recipe that you wrote. The written recipe is copyrightable, the actual proportions, sequence of steps, etc. is not copyrightable.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted. "

From what I understand, a list of ingredients is NOT copyrightable, but the description of how to combine them is if it is an original work.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

* The More You Know *

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[PhilHibbs]

How many other instances of copyright violation do you know about in this publication?

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[WrongSizeGlass]

The gaul of this woman

Yes, the French are really just incorrigible that way!

Ugh, once again my craptastic spelling and lack of coffee prevented me from typing "audacity" so I just mailed it in with "gaul" (which should have been "gall"). To one poster in particular, Kyont (145761), I wish you had given me a chance.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[mcgrew]

Isn't that weird how people get rude when they unexpectedly find their work being used to sell magazines?

What I think is wierd is how some people will wrong you, then tell you you're rude when you express your displeasure.

This world sucks.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[fishbowl]

>Copyright law IS different in regards to recipes - they can't be copyrighted.

I dare you to lift something from Better Homes and Gardens or Julia Child and publish it as your own.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[chill]

Just a nit to pick.

If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes and...

Copyright doesn't apply to recipes that are only lists of ingredients. It only applies to the description, illustration or explanations that surround the recipes.

He could have legally lifted the recipe list, then rewrote the body text and been 100% in the clear. He even could have said "I found this recipe on the web, originally put up there by Monica..." and still wouldn't have owed her a dime.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

So she apologizes... albeit in a way you don't like... and then folds the publication because she basically agrees with all you... I wonder how many of you same people would be screaming the same way for copyright protection on a story about pirated audio or movies. You're nothing but hypocritical pricks and trolls with nothing better to do than assert your laughable tough guy attitudes on whatever strikes you as an injustice at the moment.

I agree that taking the article was wrong. I also think they could have both done a better job of working it out.

But if you think I would want this sniveling little shit that jumps off the diving board when she doesn't get a response in an hour to write for me, or represent my business you're frankly as stupid as you made yourself sound with this post

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Recipes can be copyrighted, but not patented.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[idontgno]

I have never seen anything generally characterized as a "recipe" which was strictly a list of ingredients. There is always a body of imperative text giving instructions on what to do with all those ingredients. Even if the ingredient list portion by itself is uncopyrightable, the instructions certainly must be.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation:

"I'm sorry I got CAUGHT stealing! But how dare you not be nice and polite when confronting a thief! And I have a good excuse for stealing! I was very, very busy!"

Try robbing a bank and using this line on the police.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[SydShamino]

The list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted. Thus a simple recipe - one where the entire instructions consists of the list of ingredients, where the only procedure is implied (i.e. dump and mix, serve) cannot be copyrighted.

The text of the procedural instructions can be copyrighted. However, the method cannot as you note - so if the person borrowing the recipe prints the ingredient list verbatim, but rewrites the procedures to do the same thing in his or her own words, he hasn't infringed on the original author's copyright.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[drakaan]

Along those lines, my favorite sentence was this one:

...Bleary-eyed I didnt[sic] notice it was copy written and reordered some of it...

The lack of understanding there is mind boggling. It's not surprising that she's non-apologetic if she doesn't understand the fundamental gap in comprehending copyright evinced by that statement.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[wastedlife]

That is exactly what the post you are replying to says. In this case, it wasn't even about a recipe. It was an article about the history of apple pie. It did contain a couple of recipes, but the entire article was stolen, a few minor edits made, and then published without permission. IANAL, but this seems to be a clear-cut case of commercial copyright infringement.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[SiChemist]

Very well done! *golf clap*

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Quirkz]

Nice rebuttal. Also, yay, NaNoWriMo! Hope yours is going well.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[s73v3r]

The recipe itself, the list of ingredients and the steps to take those to a finished product, cannot be copyrighted. However, if I write an article, or shoot a show about the recipe, like a cooking show, that can be copyrighted.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[s73v3r]

I think the etiquette is similar to a joke. It is considered very bad form to steal another's joke, and will usually end you up blacklisted in the industry.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[s73v3r]

Apparently if you went to their website, it turns out that just about all of their other articles were taken from one place or another.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[GasparGMSwordsman]

The recipe as a list of ingredients and instructions does not in general qualify for copyright protection.. (This does assume United States jurisdiction.) Here is a nifty quote and link for you:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html:

Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression--a description, explanation, or illustration, for example--that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

You would have to include more than just a standard recipe to qualify. In this case the "magazine" is clearly in violation (assuming they did not have permission) because they copied not just the recipe but the format, style, imagery and non-recipe text included in the article.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising...

"Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it," sounds like a lot of copyright infringement right there.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[fuzznutz]

If you want to be in publishing, you should study copyright law. If you think copyright law should be different in regards to recipes

Recipes aren't copyrightable. I suspect Cooks Source printed more than just a recipe.

From the US Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[davester666]

Exactly. The woman should have patented the recipe!

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[petteyg359]

...Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it...

What is this term "copywrite" thing that has a past tense of copywritten? I've never heard of it before. Maybe you meant copyright, or copyrighted? Such a great author/editor/proofreader you are. Perhaps you should hire some of those extra staff editors and proofreaders you mentioned...

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[cpt kangarooski]

The problem isn't the list -- there can be copyrightable lists -- but subject matter and creativity. You cannot copyright a method or process itself, only a description of it. But where there are few reasonable descriptions, e.g. there are only so many ways to say 'pre-heat to 350 degrees,' the description will tend to either not be creative or not be copyrightable lest it effectively result in a copyright on the method. The best protection for a recipe is a patent, but there are various issues there too.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

To one poster in particular, Kyont (145761), I wish you had given me a chance.

lol. And thus begins, I have little doubt, a long-lived and prosperous slashdot meme.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice rebuttal. Also, yay, NaNoWriMo! Hope yours is going well.

Let's just say eek!

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[cpt kangarooski]

From what I understand, a list of ingredients is NOT copyrightable, but the description of how to combine them is if it is an original work.

No; any or all of it could be copyrightable, but usually little or none of it is. Lists can be copyrightable, if they are creative, as can recipes. But the actual method of doing things is not, and it's hard to be creative in describing the method. And even if you manage to be, if there are only a few reasonable ways to be creative in the description, a copyright would effectively be like control over the underlying method, and so would not be allowed anyway.

Long story short, a recipe has to be _very_ creative to be copyrightable. A bare-bones description of the steps involved will not suffice. Usually one of the few copyrightable things in a cookbook is the picture of the food.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[uninformedLuddite]

proportions? sequence of steps? sounds like an algorithm to me.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[cpt kangarooski]

You mean the opposite.

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip!

[cpt kangarooski]

The actual method which the instructions are a description of, is uncopyrightable. That means that anyone can, at worst, merely re-word the description and be okay.

In practice, recipe descriptions are usually not creative enough to be copyrightable. Add these together, stir that, and bake the other thing at 350 for five minutes is not adequate. It would have to be very creative, and even then, it would be tough, and still would be subject to being reworded. As a sanity check, I pulled up a recipe from the Joy of Cooking and checked it out; there is some introductory material that would be protectable, but the actual recipe pretty surely would not be. There's nothing creative about a mere list of clearly written instructions for carrying out an uncopyrightable procedure or method.

You may be interested to know that computer software often runs up against this sort of thing; parts of the actual code are copyrightable, but not all of it, and if necessary, courts will go through it carefully picking them apart, to see what had to be there, and thus isn't a creative choice, what was there, but could just as easily have not been, and thus was creative, what were standard elements that anyone might use but aren't really original, and so forth.

Copyright isn't meant to cover the functional aspects of things at all, and if the creative and useful cannot be disentangled, it all gets thrown out. Usefulness is what patents are for, and recipes can be patented (in fact, there's joke thousands of years old to the effect that patents themselves were invented for exactly that), but it rarely happens in practice.

rtfl

[stoned_hamster]

I just read the letter, and he sounds more like he's trying to blame someone else. Anyone else get the feeling?

Re:rtfl

[drinkypoo]

I just read the letter, and he sounds more like he's trying to blame someone else. Anyone else get the feeling?

It's not an apology, it's an explanation.

I just hope that the next enterprise this guy starts is noticed and watched carefully for the same shit. He's not likely to change his spots.

Re:rtfl

[WrongSizeGlass]

To both of you (and the others who made the same mistake) both parties were women. Ain't no men to balme for this one.

Re:rtfl

[whong09]

How did I know that without having to look that up? God this woman grinds my gears and I hope she dies begging for alms with the same self righteous attitude.

Re:rtfl

[tverbeek]

I wouldn't even dignify it with the word "explanation".

It's a load of whiny excuses in which the culprit claims to be a victim, much like a killer caught in the act complaining about people not being fair to him when they treat him exactly as he deserves.

Re:rtfl

[upside]

Absolutely. And she still doesn't understand copyright. *rolleyes*

"I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it."

Re:rtfl

[T.E.D.]

It was a pretty natural mistake, considering that the writer referred to the other party this way:

this woman -- Monica

Typical usage when you and your readers both aren't familiar with the person in question would be to use either their full name, or their last name and a title like "Ms." or "Dr.". Refusing to use the person's last name is a fairly typical tactic to try to diminish the authority of somebody who happens to be female. Essentially you are repeatedly calling attention to the person's gender, like you believe that is relevant information in understanding the situation. If you are a bit slow and aren't picking up that nuance, the "this woman" makes sure to beat you upside the head once with it.

Of course either gender can be jerks like that, but it is pretty stupid to bring gender into it if doing so also hurts you (assuming it hurts anyone). So the natural assumption is that the writer was not female. Our bad for assuming intelligence out of somebody dim enough to get themselves into this kind of pickle in the first place.

Re:rtfl

[Lumpy]

Actually I find and other do as well, women in power positions typically are downright mean and are called "bitchey" all the time. It's rare to find a woman in power that understands power and does not do the overcompensation of foaming at the mouth to assert their power.

My wife will not work for a woman, she is tired of the problems she has had with them. I have had to only once and she was one of the rare ones that was a true leader and understood how to treat people (rare trait in ANY human)...

I have had to deal with Female executives as a contractor, and I right away try to find another company contact to get between me and her. Although I have walked out on a customer with her screaming at me, I packed up my laptop and calmly said, "I will not work in a hostile work environment, or be verbally abused like this. I am done for the day and will not return until you either talk to me with respect; or give me a different customer contact person to deal with if you are unable to."

Nothing like letting the customers deadline slide because of their behavior to get them to suddenly act civilized. I also encourage my employees to walk out on a customer if they are verbally abusing them or are treating them with respect.

Re:rtfl

[T.E.D.]

Actually, most of my managers through my career have been women. I've had lots of crappy ones and I've had a few great ones. Pretty much just like the men. The good ones get promoted quickly, and the crappy ones stay at the bottom. :-(

Theft should be treated as theft...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's lucky she bothered to actually notify him...I don't bother talking to people anymore, it's straight to the DMCA take downs and damages claims, idiots like this have made the 'civilized' approach ineffective.

Re:Theft should be treated as theft...

[bonch]

Slashdot on piracy: "Information wants to be free! Copyrights are obsolete. Anyone trying to protect their content is just living in the past."

Slashdot on recipe plagiarism: "Hooray! Victory for the content creator whose copyright protected material was infringed upon."

Re:Theft should be treated as theft...

[JohnRoss1968]

Commercial Piracy = BAD
Trading songs for free = GOOD
Maybe we are all just tired of getting fu...screwed by Big Companies.
Hmm maybe thats why people here like Linux so much, its not a mega corp.

Re:Theft should be treated as theft...

[wshs]

Duplicating data when there's no money exchanged as a condition: ok. Sharing physical means of information (books, cds, dvds, etc), with or without fee: ok. Taking someone's work, and selling it as your own: wrong.

TCP Connection

[Voulnet]

Well, at least she was nice enough to close the TCP Connection at the end of her statement with a FIN. So to her I say "FIN ACK"

Re:TCP Connection

[loutr]

"Fin" means "(The) End" in French, maybe it was a pompous way of saying goodbye to her readers.

I do prefer your explanation though ;)

Re:TCP Connection

[CrimsonAvenger]

FIN means the same thing to editors...

Re:TCP Connection

[Voulnet]

Yes, we really know that. But there is always room for geek humor.

And Nothing of Value Was Lost.

[SenorPez]

That's as original as Cooks Source, too. FIN

Re:And Nothing of Value Was Lost.

[netsharc]

On the other hand, the name "Cooks Source" is now available, no need to worry about "copywrite" or trademarks!

Shouldn't it be "Cooks' Source" anyway?

Dumb biatch...

"Didn't notice" copyright?

[IBBoard]

I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it.

Now there's an excuse: "I went on the WWW, completely ignored the fact that everything is copyrighted as soon as it is written, whether it says '@ copyright 20XX [insert person]' or not, and just copied and altered it anyway"

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[Skater]

I thought I read somewhere that other articles had been lifted from other sites, too. Wonder what the explanation for those is...more deadlines?

Also, from the last sentence in the "apology":

To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance.

Uh, Gaudio DID give her the chance. CS responded with a very snippy email claiming the net was public domain.

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[tverbeek]

Anyone who uses the phrase "copy written"* is unqualified to edit anyone else's prose. Ever. If you don't know the difference between "right" and "write", go back to elementary school until you get it... correct.

*Unless they're using it in the sense of "to write copy (text), such as for an advertisement".

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad enough people treat "copyright" as a verb, but to conjugate it as if it were based on "to write" is drooling-on-yourself retarded.

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly right. The other Facebook account documented numerous instances where the editor lifted entire articles from Food Network, Paula Deen, and other respectable sites, publishing them word-for-word and even using artwork on the sites. This was not a single "late night" mistake but a pattern of abuse that indicates both a complete lack of understanding of the law and a desire to maximize profit (yes, she profited from ad sales for her magazine) for herself and her partner.

I run a small business and I have to be very careful how I use products from other companies and other entities. All the images and content we produce for our products are self-made to ensure no conflicts or copyright issues. We know this is important and we're in manufacturing. Anyone in the publishing business should be expert in this area.

This "apology" sounds more like an explanation or rationale for her anger than an admission that her business practices were at least unethical and at most illegal. The general tone of the message, from the complete lack of understanding that the email exchange with Ms. Gaudio was her chance to make things right to her mocking enjoyment at the amount of attention she received indicates at some level a sociopathic tendency. Her apology continues to blame others for her lack of judgement, her failure to correct the wrong when confronted, and her inability to come clean when an overwhelming amount of evidence stares her in the face.

I pray she does not attempt to "make a comeback" or try to "resurrect her reputation", but I fear that we have not yet seen the last of this character.

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[fastest fascist]

Ironically enough, I seem to recall that in the original e-mail exchange the Cooks source (sic) editor actually stated their editing made the article better.

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't realize it was copywritten because being bleary-eyed she assumed it was copytelekenesisized into existence.

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[techno-vampire]

If you'd bothered to RTFA, that's how the twit spelled it in the "apology," along with several other mis-spellings. Judging only from that one article, the world is probably better off without her magazine.

Re:"Didn't notice" copyright?

[tverbeek]

Um.... I did RTFA, because that's exactly what I was talking about.

Its sad really...

[cindyann]

It's sad when steals something that doesn't belong to them.

Sadder still when they whine about being too busy to take a phone call or reply to email in a timely way when the owner tried to contact you. This is the 21st Century, on the internet; we don't wait two or three days for people to get back to us.

And the saddest thing of all is an editor who can't spell "it's" correctly in the very first sentence of their lame explanation for having stolen something.

Good bye!

[mnslinky]

She's a snake, and I'm glad her magazine folded. She seems full more of excuses than remorse. She regrets getting caught, and having it publicized, not that she took an article without permission.

Wait, people cook? Read magazines?

[digitaldc]

What is this? 1990?

And?

[ledow]

You're a publisher. You are in business. You publish a magazine. Thus you have a legal responsibility to understand copyright. You still don't get that taking something EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR'S NAME INTACT is copyright infringement, and that just because it doesn't say "DON'T STEAL ME OR I SUE YOU" it doesn't mean it's okay to pinch someone else work. You didn't ask, so you don't get. It doesn't really matter about offering compensation after the event because, by your own public admission, you did something that you shouldn't have. That author has the legal right to block your publication and do all sorts of nasties to you because of that. A lot of copyright cases end up with a financial settlement but that's not *required* or even *satisfactory* to resolution of a problem unless the injured party agrees to that.

"I copied your article from the Times into my book word-for-word, but didn't bother to ask - sorry about that, here's some cash!" - it doesn't work like that, and if you'd asked, the author most likely would have been more than happy to let you have it (your name in a published book = wow) but equally they may be under some contractual restrictions regarding what they can do with that text, they may have licensed it from someone else. But you don't know because you didn't ask.

Then you go and make an essentially naive and unresearched opinion that shows you've never understood copyright law (it doesn't need an attribution or even a copyright symbol to be subject to copyright). You don't immediately retract or explain. Admittedly then you are harassed unnecessarily because of a stupid quote that you stupidly said, but the core of the problem is that you're a publisher that infringed copyrighted content (as far as the world knows, because you've just admitted that). *That's* why advertisers won't want to deal with you, because you could be out of business tomorrow if it turns out that you've been doing it for years because you do not understand copyright law and finally it's caught up with you. It's not a big deal - even the big papers do it - there have been a couple of "whoops, we used your photo without asking" cases in the national press in the UK lately and it's ended up in court or in large settlements.

The problem was not understanding the law surrounding the business you were in. The rest of the "admission" is just emotional padding to try to instil guilt. A lot of people are out of work at the moment, but nowhere near the most in history (and considering the population is ever-growing, that means this *isn't* the worst it's ever been by a long shot), and trying to push that angle is just crass. And we're not talking about someone who wants to bankrupt you, we're talking about someone asking for fair recompense for an infringing act that you just admitted you did.

Nobody cares about the damn recipe, you just made a fool of yourself by not understanding copyright (and in your business, that's like a taxi driver not knowing what a brake is), and then propagated that by making hugely incorrect public statements and trying to paint people as bad.

If you've gone out of business because of your own misunderstanding of a well-known law within your professional field, that's really your fault and no-one else's (and I fail to believe that this one incident is enough to stop the business unless it's through your own unwillingness to actually continue - you were already far, far, overworked but couldn't afford to hire help - sounds exactly like a business on the edge to me, and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back). In future, consult lawyers, don't make public statements, and learn how to do your own job - not painting everyone else as the enemy might help as well, also having a bit more of a steel jaw when it comes to random people on Facebook etc. commenting on you.

I don't really care about copyright and have had websites that I've written stolen and copied byte-for-byte onto confusingly similar domains. I threatened too, and got them removed

Re:And?

[mcgrew]

The material was already mirrored on several similar sites at other people's request but someone just wanted to claim someone else's work as their own and thus ended up in trouble and getting shut down.

I had the same experience about ten or so years ago. The worst ones kept the text intact except the copyright notice, and replaced my name with their own. In my mind, the pagarism was far worse than the infringement. I only wanted credit for the work I'd done, not money.

I had literally dozens taken down, and the thing is, had they asked permission and given me credit and a link, I would have let them mirror it for free.

Re:And?

[wastedlife]

Well stated. However, if you haven't, you should really send this to her in some form. I doubt she knows where /. is "on the WWW".

Re:And?

[Solandri]

You're a publisher. You are in business. You publish a magazine. Thus you have a legal responsibility to understand copyright. You still don't get that taking something EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR'S NAME INTACT is copyright infringement,

I think you've hit upon the root cause of the problem. Increasingly, our copyright laws are being subverted for the benefit of publishers instead of authors. So it's not so surprising that a publisher would think that copyright exists to support her, and not the author.

Re:And?

[cpt kangarooski]

You still don't get that taking something EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR'S NAME INTACT is copyright infringement

Well, that depends on what it is.

(it doesn't need an attribution or even a copyright symbol to be subject to copyright).

Which is really too bad. Copyright worked better when there were proper formalities, and any meaningful reform will need to include the return and revitalization of several formalities. There is more to reform than just dialing down the term length, after all.

Re:And?

[cpt kangarooski]

Increasingly, our copyright laws are being subverted for the benefit of publishers instead of authors.

That has been the case since at least the 1740s, which is pretty impressive, given that modern copyright law was only first enacted in 1710. Copyright is, ultimately, a right that is only worth anything to an author insofar as he can sell it to a publisher, and only worth anything to a publisher insofar as he can use it to attack rival publishers. And since publishers tend to be better at the business of copyright than authors, it should not be surprising that publishers will always dominate the copyright industries for their own benefit. It doesn't actually help authors much at all, but if it does produce a benefit to the public greater than if we didn't have it, it's nevertheless worth having.

She Bragged on facebook

[commodore64_love]

She wasn't sorry at all, but was happy that it gave her tons of new "friends" and views.

She just didn't understand that she was stealing someone else's labor.

Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

I didn't pay any attention at all to this when the initial article went by, don't even remember it.

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell. Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.

This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.

Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?

Based on the statement/apology her little magazine was teetering on the brink already, and now it's toppled over it. It's more an amusement than anything to most of us - I mean, I find it interesting, but I don't think it's exactly a tragedy.

I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.

For her, it's a tragedy.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

Sure. And if that comparison applied here, the person being infringed upon would have had a history of recklessly suing 92 year old great-grandmas who are scared to death of computers but somehow must have posted all of those copyrighted recipes online someplace.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Skater]

Something else I've seen on /. (usually in regards to the CueCat): it's not my job to support a poor business plan. Failure is always an option in any business.

And, frankly, I think you're wrong about the music thing: if someone was downloading rips of songs, burning them to CD, and selling them on the street or giving them away free and being paid by advertisers, most of Slashdot would agree that's wrong.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[suso]

You're exactly right. Articles like this would make for a good study by comparing comments with other articles on copyright, DRM and so on to see if a specific commentator switches sides. Either people are switching sides or we are just seeing different "parties" come out of the woodwork depending on the article content.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Haedrian]

"If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party"

There are many differences - if we wanted to make them equal then :

"Magazine X [which is avaliable for free and makes no profits whatsoever] printed a [recipe written by a [multi-millionaire recipe-creator, who sued college students for thousands of dollars], with all the information required to purchase more of this person's work]"

Which is totally different. Brackets up there intend to show 'pieces' - not used as per English Grammar use.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[commodore64_love]

- It's not the initial act of copyright Infringement that angers me.

- It's the magazine's attitude that they did nothing wrong, and don't think they should pay the recipe writer, and they can't believe the owner even bothered to write and complain to them.

- If the mag had just apologized, everything would be cool.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[imakemusic]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

It's not black and white. If she had saved some copyrighted text from a website to her computer and read it on her iPod then that would be analogous. Or if she downloaded some music rearranged it, called it her own and then published it for money, then that would be analogous. What she did was steal others work for profit.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[commodore64_love]

>>>selling them on the street or giving them away free and being paid by advertisers

Yes we would. We don't have a problem with home owners "sampling" a movie prior to buying the DVD or CD legally. But we'd have a problem if they started profiting from the practice... that makes them a true pirate. Just like this "Miss Cooks" gal.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

You need to be totally brainwashed by RIAA propaganda to have any confusion here.

The original purpose of copyright was exactly to prevent commercial publishing houses from making large scale copies of copyrighted works, often for profit, it was never intended to prevent private copying for personal, non-commercial use.

So, of course a sane person would be outraged at a magazine making illegal commercial use of copyrighted materials, but have no problem with individuals making copies of songs for personal use.

Worst, the amount the magazine paid to the copyright owner is most probably FAR, FAR less that the statutory amount that individual music copier will face against RIAA. How many copies of that work have the magazine made, do you think they are paying _anywhere_ like a few thousand dollars per infringement (i.e. per copy) to the lady?

If you do not see a problem with the current situation of copyright laws, you really are confused.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[azalin]

A cook should know how to keep a kitchen clean or should have his restaurant closed.
A taxi driver should know traffic laws or loose his license.
A musician should know how to play (or at least how to entertain people) or not get hired to perform on stage.
A policeman should know to stick to the law and not beat up people, or get fired (among other things).
And an editor who wants to sell a paper (to the advertisers or the readers) should know about copyright or not even think about publishing.

We are not talking about a school newspaper that used a copied article and forgot to ask beforehand, neither is this a case of someone copying the article and sharing it with a friend. We are talking about someone who tried to sell an other persons work as their own without even asking or giving credit.
It was in her field of profession, so her "excuse" is null and void and she did it to earn money.
Know your job or don't do it.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[tverbeek]

"If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party."

Speak for yourself. I have complete contempt for anyone who rips off other people's work in this way.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[imakemusic]

...or there are two different arguments. As a musician, I don't mind if you download my music, however I would take exception to you claiming it as your own and publishing it for profit.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I didn't pay any attention at all to this when the initial article went by, don't even remember it.

Awesome, then you're just as qualified to make judgements as the lady who stole the article is to decide what's public domain.

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

I'll give you a hint: There's more than one person on Slashdot.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

Although I have no doubt you could find someone on Slashdot that supports re-publishing someone else's music for their own financial gain, you might have a hard time finding two. Even stealing music for personal use is not exactly supported.

This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell. Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.

This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.

Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?

If that's honestly the way you think, you must get taken in a lot. "I didn't know I couldn't do that" is practically the International Order of Shysters and Crooks rallying cry.

Based on the statement/apology her little magazine was teetering on the brink already, and now it's toppled over it. It's more an amusement than anything to most of us - I mean, I find it interesting, but I don't think it's exactly a tragedy.

I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.

For her, it's a tragedy.

Um, good? Fuck her? Also, didn't you just try to garner sympathy by claiming that it was given away for free at grocery stores? Was it a labor of love, a hobby, or was it a business? Because stealing is a lot less forgivable when you're making or even trying to make money off it, but having your hobby (where your hobby is stealing other people's work) shut down isn't quite the tragedy having your livelihood shut down is. You seem to want it both ways, but forgot to read your own post.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[JasterBobaMereel]

Music Copyright - Rich global companies making huge profits off other people work, some long dead

This - Running a (very small) company based largely on other peoples work

No don't see any comparison here ...

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[clickclickdrone]

>A taxi driver should know traffic laws or loose his license.
And someone on Slashdot should know the difference between loose and lose.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Kokuyo]

I think you're confusing something here:

We're not okay with people infringing on Big Labels' copyrights. We do, however, advocate fair use. And we're also in favor of proportional penalties when copyright violations do happen.

Now, we all remain human and are thus not perfect. After all the bullshit MAFIAA has heaped upon the population, do excuse us for being on David's side per default, just to be sure, until Goliath can prove that his demands are reasonable.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[mooingyak]

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

It's not confusing, and the position taken by many slashdotters is more consistent then you seem to want to think. The main distinction is what the infringing party does with it. Infringement for commercial profit (which is what happened here) is rarely if ever supported. Infringement for personal use is tolerated by some, rationalized by many others, and (though many pretend not to notice) villainized by a segment too. Additionally, if I think that *AA studies vastly overstate the effects of 'piracy' or that the awards given by some lawsuits are excessive and well beyond the damage done, it doesn't mean that I condone infringement.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

The fine line that divides the good from the bad in the majority opinion on Slashdot is whether copyright infringement is committed for financial gain or for non-commercial, personal use. If you plan to work in publishing or content-production, you should get used to making sure that your materials are properly licensed, even when you feel no moral obligation and your current use is purely personal. You'll need to learn how to find affordable legal sources early on, to avoid getting trapped in the thinking that everything is freely available on the internet.

While it's somewhat tragic that a small production ends because of this kerfuffle, it could have been much worse. This naive attitude towards copyright is dangerous for private people, but it's a financial nightmare waiting to happen for publishers, no matter how small their production is. There are bad people out there who prey on small-time web authors that are ignorant of copyright law. An angry letter means they got off lightly. Failing to take the situation seriously and being publicly ostracized instead of having to pay through the nose for the mistake is still far from the worst that could happen.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what's upsetting people is that the subject "borrowed" material and used it for (personal) economical gains.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the mag had just apologized, everything would be cool."

So if I rape your mom but apologize afterward, everything's cool?

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[icebraining]

f the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because it was a for-profit business.
And it may also be because the creator of such content, after finding out about the infringement, asks for a donation to a small college instead of suing for millions of dollars.

This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell.

Yes, and they had a bunch of advertisers. Google services are almost all free for the user, too. Yet it's still a for-profit company.

Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.
This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.
Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?

First, OTA TV is free, some newspapers are free. Nobody thinks it's OK to distribute them.

Secondly, after she was called out, what does she do? Did she apologized and offered to donate like a decent person? No, she said "You're lucky I give you anything".

I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.
For her, it's a tragedy.

I'd pity her if she sounded like a decent person and did the right thing after being contacted. But she never even apologized. She deserved what she got.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[_Shad0w_]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

No we wouldn't. I might criticise the infringed party if they claim ludicrous damages, but in general I'd support their right protect their copyright.

I think the problem most of us have with the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, etc isn't that they're protecting copyright, it's that they're behaving like dicks while they do it. The same can hardly be said of the woman in this case.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party

So let's take an analogy (two, actually):

Musician A puts his own sheet music online, musician B records it in a studio and publishes it on cd. When A hears about the song, he contacts B and asks for recognition (like "song 7 composed by A") and a donation to last.fm . B's response: F U, it's on the Internet so I may do as I please. A publishes B's response, and subsequently B's record company drops B.

Programmer A puts his own minimal toolset (say, Busybox) online under a fairly permissive license. Powerhouse B includes the toolset in a product. When A finds out about the inclusion, he contacts B and asks for A to comply with the license. B's response: F U, that license is not applicable to us. FSF sues B on A's behalf, and wins.

On which of those cases will /. side with B?

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

Ok, let's ignore the facts of the case (like the admission of guilt). Do you really think that /. identifies with content producers? Most of us are coders, not graphic designers or publishers. We would rather write a scraper/spider than our own content.

This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell.

So that makes violating the law ok? Not only that, but does it also allow you to insult the original artists when they contact you about it? If her initial response had been a little more tactful, like negotiation instead of dismissal, this case would probably never have been published this widely, let alone force her to close up shop.

Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.

Then they shouldn't put out a magazine, and if they do, not act all high-and-mighty when they are contacted by a third party. Acknowledging a mistake goes a long way, especially when there are no profits at stake.

This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression

Of course it can. That's why we have had a marketing campaign by the big media for the last 15 years two "educate" the public. Under what rock has she been living?

Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?

Who knows and uses the term "public domain", and yet does not know anything about copyright? The two are intertwined: if you know what "public domain" means, then you sure as hell know what copyright entails.

I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.
For her, it's a tragedy.

I'm sure it is. Nobody is attacking her for going under. She's being attacked for the way she's dealt with the situation, probably because her attitude is typical of big business: "yeah we took it, but that's okay, we think we're allowed to".

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[milkmage]

then pay attention now.
this is what she said when she was initially contacted by the author:

seems her flippant "apology" only came AFTER the story went viral

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! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"

this would have never made it to MSM if she simply said "sorry, we'll take it down immediately." six. simple. words.

she brought this on herself with that response. good riddance.

whether or not you understand the internet and public domain.. she went as far as to suggest she get paid for editing.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[drinkypoo]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

Who is this "we"? I believe that you are full of shit. Numerous people have been spanked for unauthorized commercial use of music much to the rejoicing of the Slashdot community at large. My perception of the prevailing groupthink is that Slashdot is not forgiving of unauthorized commercial use.

This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.

And yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.

For her, it's a tragedy.

No, it is not a tragedy. She brought it on herself. It was her responsibility to determine whether she had the right to reuse the material created by others, and any responsible individual who wishes to engage in a publishing activity will put at least a small amount of effort into understanding the laws and regulations pertaining thereto, of which copyright is the chiefest and indeed the most visible and obvious. Rather than a tragedy, it is the fitting and logical conclusion to her actions.

(sig) The preferred solution is to not have a problem.

How very fucking ironic to have this at the end of your comment. The preferred solution in this case would have been to not appropriate other people's content.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[commodore64_love]

Anon. Coward writes:
So if I rape your mom but apologize afterward, everything's cool?

HUGE difference in the crime. One is merely taking an article w/o payment (a few pennies lost) while the other is physical & emotional abuse.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

I don't think most Slashdotters have a problem with copyrights on music per se, just the fact that copyright is ridiculously long (70+ years). If ,in the US, it was kept at the original 17 years, with an optional 17 year extension, I don't think most people would have a problem with it.

There are problems that a lot of people have with the music industry in general that are only partly related to copyright: DRM for one example. Most non-cheapskates have no problem with paying for music (or any other media), but when it's wrapped in an encrypted form that prevents one from backing it up or playing it one one's device of choice (i.e., only "authorized" device) then it becomes annoying.

Furthermore there's a dislike for the media "cartels" like MPAA and RIAA which basically gouged artists. I think most Slashdotters would love to be able to pay artists directly, instead of having the majority of the cash going to the record label.

This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell. Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. How many people have been nailed to the wall by RIAA/MPAA lawyers (even completely innocent people who don't even have a computer!) ?

The mob's reaction was probably over-the-top, but the publishers should have asked permission.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[panda]

Actually, from where I sit, the answer is "No."

The problem with copyright infringement with music is that the RIAA is going after the wrong people. They're going after downloaders, when it is actually the uploaders who are infringing copyright.

Read the law, Title 17 of the US Code. In America, copyright is all about distribution. It is the distributor of the copyrighted work who is breaking the law, and not the recipient.

Now, you can make complicated arguments one way or the other about what distribution means in a legal context, but traditionally it has meant diffusing the work and not receiving the work. This of course works with physical copies. I make a copy of a CD and give it to you. I am the one violating the artists' and/or publishers' rights, but you are not. In a digital context, the RIAA seems to argue that downloading equals distribution to yourself. Sounds crazy to me, since actually making a copy of something for your own use has never AFAICT been ruled a violation of copyright (cf. the BETAMAX decision).

With applications like BitTorrent, you are both downloading and uploading the content at the same time. You are infringing copyright if you or the person(s) from who you are getting the data do not have permission to distribute said data.

IANAL, but I have worked in the publishing industry and my main job when I did work in publishing was filling out the copyright registration forms and providing the deposit copies to the Library of Congress. I have read the relevant publications from the Library of Congress as well as Title 17 of the US Code (cited above). Everything that I say above applies to the United States and may be different in other jurisdictions.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[thoth]

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

The magazine did the equivalent of: taking other music in violation of copyright, repackaged it in a convenient form, and passed it off as their own work. I haven't seen "slashdot" advocate that so I'm in turn puzzled by your confusion.

Sorry their small business went under, but you'd think somebody in the publication business would grasp the most basic concepts of copyright. Did this magazine think they could scrape newspaper websites for articles and republish those too?

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[esme]

You are making a false equivalence between different kinds of copyright violations. Private individuals downloading copyrighted music for non-commercial use is against copyright law. But it doesn't deprive musicians of much (if any) income, since they make most of their income from performance and merchandise sales anyway. But when a magazine publishes articles from a writer without attribution, they are profiting off the writer's work and depriving her of the income (since selling articles to magazines for publication is how a lot of writers earn their living).

Granted, this magazine was a shoestring operation, not some big multinational conglomerate that had a legal team to cover all the ins-and-outs of copyright law. If they had legal advice or a decent understanding of copyright law, they obviously wouldn't have done this. But that's just the thing: music companies are suing private individuals who accidentally shared a few songs, and getting hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. Their ignorance of copyright law doesn't get them out of jail free.

And just to be clear, I think copyright law should be abolished, and replaced with a requirement for attribution. I think downloading music and movies is fine, and artists should find a new way to make a living, because charging for copies is untenable now. But I think artists, writers, etc. should get credit for their work. So I think it would be fine to take a book, change the last paragraph because you don't like the original ending, and publish it, as long as you make it clear that it's a derivative work. So you might not agree with my opinion, but it's perfectly consistent to be for non-commercial downloading, but also against magazines ripping off writers.

I am also sick of the "slashdot thinks X and slashdot thinks Y, so slashdot is a bunch of hypocrites" line of reasoning that crops up on almost every copyright story. slashdot is made up of hundreds of thousands of people. Maybe the people who are all for downloading are mostly different from the people are against ripping off writers. Or maybe most people think non-commercial downloading is OK, but ripping off a writer for commercial gain isn't. Who knows? If you want to accuse a person of hypocrisy, go ahead. But slashdot isn't a coherent entity to have an argument with, and it doesn't have to have a consistent opinion on anything.

-Esme

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't go around perpetuating the myth that song downloading is costing record companies millions of dollars but it's actually a good thing when a business does it. I don't give two fucks if it's a "small business" or how much it sucks when you kill it. There is a difference between using something for monetary gain and not using it for monetary gain. Do you really not see the difference? I guess that might explain failed businesses that are like the death of a family member. Having had both happen recently, I'd like to say" fuck you". Unless you actually had a family member die recently, then I'd like to say "get help". You should not be equating the two.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[mwvdlee]

In general, people on Slashdot aren't so much against the punishing of music copyright infringements; they're against fining US$250.000 for each individual song, starting legal suits without so much as a shred of evidence and offering settlements with the threat of ridiculously expensive and long-winded courtcases.

The music industry's legal campaign seems to have little to do with "justice".

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Critical Facilities]

Music Copyright - Rich global companies making huge profits off other people work, some long dead

See? This is my problem. I think the real issue is that a lot of folks on SlashDot automatically equate copyright issues for music with the insane abuses and invasions that are committed by the RIAA and other major media companies. Unfortunately, it's pretty rare that the same group which throws up this same correlation thinks of the artists who are either independent, or for one reason or another are "represented" by one of said media companies.

Now look, before you go flaming me into oblivion, I'm not defending the RIAA/MAFIAA/whatever we're calling "them" this week. I think it's insane that they're trying to sue kids/grandparents for millions of dollars for grabbing some tracks off of Limewire or whatever. I get it. I agree that this is insane and is invalid any way you cut it. What I'm bothered by is that it appears that no one seems to come to the defense of the artist(s) whose livelihood is somewhat dependent on the exclusivity provided by copyright law. Now, a lot of folks like to take this view of "well, the artist(s) shouldn't be dumb enough to enter a contract with one of these evil companies", which is a very cogent point particularly considering advances in technology which make it very possible to do a lot of recording in relatively modest home studios. The problem is, this isn't going to apply to everyone, and sometimes, artist(s) are going to need some financial/business backing to get something off the ground.

If I compose a suite of music for a full orchestra and I really want it to be done well, it's not possible for me to have a full orchestra come hang out in my bonus room for week and let me record them take-by-take to capture my composition. If I were to partner with a large media company or some other vehicle of financial and logistical backing, I could probably swing this. I bring this up to point out that sometimes, there are some pretty good reasons that artists partner with "evil" companies. Thus, when said "evil" company is attempting to protect its own admittedly greedy interests in the work they've produced, they're also protecting the artist's interest. In other words, it's not always as simple as just striking out on your own.

I am someone who writes/composes everything I create, and I perform all the instruments on all of my work. I make music because I love it. I greatly enjoy hearing music in my head, and getting it fleshed out into a finished product. I do not depend on my making music to support me. I am fortunate to have a very good "straight job", and I have no illusions about "striking it rich" with a song. I choose to make most of my stuff completely free to download and offer most of it for use under the Creative Commons license in exchange for credit. I enjoy working with film makers and producers, and I feel good when I can let someone use some of my stuff in their work, and have it support the work in a way they find satisfying. I feel fine being able to make this choice myself, and am not trying to profit at others expense. However, as an artist, I reserve the right to try to make some money off of my work every now and again. I don't think I'm greedy or a jerk for thinking that if someone is willing to pay a little money to get a copy of my stuff on iTunes or pay me a little bit to use my stuff in their Youtube videos that I participate in the mechanisms that allow for me to receive money in exchange for my work.

By extension, I don't think it's totally unreasonable for artists to partner with either various unions like ASCAP or BMI to provide them this same mechanism. I had an

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[fishbowl]

For the most part, the music publishing companies do so with the informed consent and in return for some consideration for the material they distribute, and they generally operate in a way that is consistent with the Berne Convention and other laws.

The example in TFA is has someone publishing the work of another, claiming it as their own, in a way that shows them to be clearly ignorant that there are laws against the very thing they did. The magazine's only saving grace is that they didn't accuse the original writer of copying *them.*

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[capnchicken]

I am honestly surprised at the harshness of the replies to this post.

To all my older siblings in this reply, look, we all understand copyright here ok? We're knee deep in discussing all this intellectual property shit daily.

One of the things we discuss here is the disproportional punishments laid upon people who infringe copyright. Sickening enough that law firms can now make money by simply targeting people en masse and sending them settlement letters for a few thousand dollars, or telling them that they will see them in court.

She did something stupid, and even worse, said something stupid. And ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this time the internet hate machine targeted a little gal with no real and apparent unwarranted-self-importance that just liked to write and cook and publish a shitty little unheard of magazine. And as always, the Internet did so such with such awesomely ignorant DRTFA remarks about recipes being protected under copyright (Protip:they're not) and other such off topic drivel. And to that I cry foul. To your fucking lynch mob mentality and the apathetic allowance of it in this instance.

There were no big guys or little guys here, just a lot of misdirected Internet hate.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Jason Levine]

I don't think my position is contradictory. I think sharing music (without the copyright owner's permission) is wrong. I also think that copying someone's article into your magazine is wrong.

Of course, I think the penalties for the two should be different. The former is done without any commercial intent while the latter is done to make money. If someone took my work and was sharing it out to other people without my permission, I'd be mad and would ask them to stop. If they were selling it to other people and pocketing the money, though, I'd be furious and would file a lawsuit.

The penalties for the former should be restructured so that they are still substantial enough to act as a detterant but not so high as to lead to bankruptcy. In other words, sharing songs without commercial intent shouldn't lead to $62,500 per song fines (like Jammie Thomas-Rasset has received). A fee of 10x the market price of the song would seem more appropriate. This would make Jammie Thomas-Rasset's fine for 24 songs shared between $237.60 and $309.60. (Depending on whether you used $0.99 or $1.29 as "market value".)

Taking someone's work and using it commercially without permission, however, should retain the full penalties of copyright law. In this case, considering the likely distribution size of the Cooks Source magazine, I think the $750 per infringement end of the spectrum would be more reasonable than the $150,000 end. Of course, considering that she also ripped off Paula Dean and others, she would be facing multiple $750 judgements. At one point, I saw a Google Document that listed all of the infringements that people had found. There were, IIRC, around 40 of them. If each of those people got $750 judgements, then Cooks Source would be facing a $30,000 pay out for copyright infringement.

I'd much rather see a magazine pay $30,000 in fines for stealing articles than see a home user have to pay $62,500 for sharing out 24 songs.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Lumpy]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

Huh? I have never seen anyone support some scumbag artist that copies another artists song and profits from it. In fact most everyone here is AGAINST IT.

In fact the other side of the coin, Stealing a song and then SELLING it every single post on Slashdot for the entire time of it's existence has stood to be against people that steal a song and sell it.

What site are you reading? because your statement is not what I have ever seen even reading at 0 on slashdot.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Columbia University is the complete opposite of a small college you ignorant fuck.

The rest of your post follows in line with that sentiment.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[LWATCDR]

Really?
So you think Pirates Bay should be shutdown? They where a torrent tracker supported by ads....

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite the same thing. When I download music, I don't then package it on a compilation album of some sort and resell it without paying the original artist. This woman took another person's creative work and published it in her own magazine. She profited from the sale of that magazine and the ads in that magazine. THAT is the issue here.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[LWATCDR]

I do have a little pity but she did bring at least a part of it on herself. That reply when about just lifting in and taking off the name was just wrong as was the comment about everything on the Internet being in the public domain.
I do feel sorry for the people that ran the magazine. I doubt that they are evil or bad people they just made a mistake and then compounded it. It is an important lesson for all of Slashdot.
I wonder how different it would have been if she had handled like this.
"I am really sorry I thought I had contacted you and gotten your permission. It was my error and I am truly sorry. Your write up was great. We are just a tiny two person operation and we usually pay x for this and I would be very happy to cut you a check for that amount. Again it was totally my error and in addition to the check I would also like to offer you a free ad in our next two magazines for your blog. I hope that you will find that agreeable."

That is something that people on Slashdot should learn. When you are wrong just say, I am sorry and get on with your life. Or to put it another way when your find ourself in a hole stop digging!

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[heironymous]

No, it is not a tragedy. She brought it on herself.

Actually, that precisely is the definition of tragedy. :-)

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[jesdynf]

Additionally, if I think that *AA studies vastly overstate the effects of 'piracy' or that the awards given by some lawsuits are excessive and well beyond the damage done, it doesn't mean that I condone infringement.

I do... or rather, I don't recognize the concept of infringement. Copyright is *For Limited Times*, a balance between my interests and the interest of the creators. What we've got isn't balanced and isn't limited, and I haven't signed on to it. I could still be robbed or imprisoned if I'm caught violating it, but it doesn't merit the respect or deference a *law* does, merely the wary acknowledgement that a tool of your enemies can harm you.

If you don't like that, go come up with some real laws instead of jawing about "theft". I was guaranteed created works would enter the public domain -- what we have is theft from *me*.

(I suppose that in a country with sensible copyrights what this guy did was pretty douchey. But that isn't here.)

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Someones ethics are circumstantial. Hopefully they don't let you manage anything where you have to deal with gray area... as it is apparent that you are more than happy to bend your ethics to suit yourself.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[mcgrew]

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

What you seem not to understand is there is no herd mentality here. Some here are against all copyright, some here are for copyright but think the law goes way too far, and a few think copyright law is fine as it is.

For example, I personally think that copyright should last no longer than twenty years; I have no remorse over infringing a dead man's forty year old copyright. I also have seen studies and examples that show that piracy increases sales.

There is also the difference between commercial copyright infringement (taking an entire web page from someone else's site and putting it on your own ad-laden site) and noncommercial infringement (letting your friend make a copy of your Metallica CD).

If you take my work without permission and make money on it, that money rightfully belongs to me. You have indeed stolen from me; the money you made should have been mine. The property you stole and deprived me of is my money.

But if you make a copy of my work for your own personal use, I've lost nothing. You weren't going to buy it anyway. Why would you spend money reading someone you've never heard of? But that copy you got for free will, if I don't suck, probably garner a sale from you in the future.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Maudib]

Piracy of RIAA/MPAA/* member material is an ethical imperative.

Any material that is published by members of these organizations is a legitimate target for application of The Doctrine of Reciprocal Abuse. Any work that is tainted by affiliation with publishers/authors/composers/labels/etc/companies that are members of the RIAA/MPAA/* should be stolen and distributed as widely as possible. Of course any work that remains free of the taint of the RIAA/MPAA/* should be paid for.

Until the the copyright term extension act is repealed and the hundreds of billions of dollars they stole from the commons is repaid, it should be a goal for each of us: cost them and their members as much money as possible. Bankrupt them.

These are cartels of thugs in suits that buy legislation, blackmail and extort the weakest and then stand on pulpits and claim to be victims. They are turning the administrators of our colleges into gestapo informants. The fact that our political system happens to be so corrupt that they can legally buy legislation that protects this activity does nothing to change the ethics of the situation, if anything it highlights the importance of acting against those organizations that would exploit our system of governments weaknesses.

Work with them and any consequences suffered are your own fault.

*Or other company that spent $ lobbying for copyright term extension act, dmca, so possibly authors guild, Im still not clear on them.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

No, it's about making money from somebody else's work without permission. That makes it plagiarism, not copyright infringement. Or even counterfeiting, but that doesn't appear to be the situation here.

From what I've seen, most people wouldn't have (much of) a problem with the RIAA going after people for something like $10 a song. What they're objecting to is a) suing someone's kid and getting damages upwards of $20k per song and b) trying to say that it's hurting them financially due to 'lost sales' which never would have been made.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[drinkypoo]

Only when it happens to a likable character. When it happens to someone you hate, it's all WIN

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Red Flayer]

Columbia University is the complete opposite of a small college you ignorant fuck.

Speaking of ignorant fucks, surely you are aware of the actual size of Columbia University?

There are approximately 5600 undergrads at Columbia -- while this is not tiny, it's not large, either.

The opposite of a mall college would be something like Ohio State University, South Florida University, etc.

Columbia happens to be prestigious, and well-endowed, but they are by no means a large school.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only confusing to you because you're dumb.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[david_thornley]

Fortunately for your plan, all people on /. think in terms of bumper sticker slogans, and never have nuanced opinions that depend on something more than the summary title.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I see that you're new here.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

"Magazine X [which is avaliable for free and makes no profits whatsoever] printed a [recipe written by a [multi-millionaire recipe-creator, who sued college students for thousands of dollars], with all the information required to purchase more of this person's work]".

So, in your analogy, if the injured party were [small independent recipe-creator who is neither backed by a multi-millionaire recipe publisher nor sued college students for thousands of dollars, and depends on the revenue from their recipe to pay the rent], then it wouldn't be okay, right?

Not all musicians have millions of dollars or make a habit of suing college students. I know more than a few people who tried to make music as a career and couldn't work it out financially.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[bonch]

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

Hell, if you think that's self-serving, consider how Slashdot behaves toward "stolen GPL code." The GPL is a copyright license...

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[bonch]

And, frankly, I think you're wrong about the music thing: if someone was downloading rips of songs, burning them to CD, and selling them on the street or giving them away free and being paid by advertisers, most of Slashdot would agree that's wrong.

You mean like The Pirate Bay and its banner ads?

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[wastedlife]

Well, Slashdot is not a collective hive-mind on any subject, but with regards to the copyright infringement of music, the infringing party is normally not doing the infringing for commercial benefit, and the rewards are monstrous. For example, after 2 appeals, Jammie Thomas now owes the RIAA $1.5 million for 24 songs. This, on the other hand, is a case of commercial infringement, and the infringing party was asked to donate a small amount of money to the Columbia School of Journalism as compensation. The infringing party then responded rudely to the request and made some pretty bold statements. Sure, she probably should not have received that level of harassment, but if that is enough to fail the business, it was doomed from the start. If you want to start a small business doing anything, it is your responsibility to understand your legal obligations. Would you say it is a tragedy for a small food stand run by a couple neighbors to be shut down for not following proper health and sanitation procedures? Should we feel sorry for them because they were ignorant to their obligations?

Now, she comes out with a boat-load of excuses and a half-assed "apology". And she wants everyone to feel sorry for her? I think I will just sit back and enjoy watching her "tragedy".

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not a tragedy. She brought it on herself.

Actually, that precisely is the definition of tragedy. :-)

What? No, it isn't. A tragedy, as a kind of play, is about bad things happening unavoidably, and that's also what it means as applied to a real-life event. One of the most famous Greek tragedies, Oedipus, involves a guy getting told what bad things are going to happen, trying to avoid them, and then realizing that nothing he does makes a difference.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[commodore64_love]

No more like that Christian company that used to take DVDs, strip-out the naughty words or scenes, and then sell the edited movies to families.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Critical Facilities]

Gee, thanks for your overt willingness to steal from those of us who make the music. What an insightful comment full of inspirational wisdom. Apparently, you don't read too well, as I very clearly pointed out that while said organizations are assuredly greedy/evil, you've got to keep in mind that there are people who are caught up "in the system" for whom it can be quite tricky to disentangle themselves. You need to understand that in your incitement that any work affiliated with these organizations "should be stolen and distributed as widely as possible" affects a lot of innocents (innocents in the sense that there are a lot of us who have no interest in trying to make millions off of one big song, nor are we interested in suing college kids and grandmothers for downloading our stuff).

As for your oh-so-typical "work with them and any consequences suffered are your own fault" comment, it illustrates that you didn't read my comment at all, and you're clearly not thinking about all aspects of it. But then, I'm sure you'd be just fine with someone taking your work without your permission and doing whatever they wanted to with it, right tough guy?

You, sir, are a moron.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[jp10558]

I think the main difference is that this was a business, operating for-profit, that broke copyright law. It seems that has to be what copyright law was always targeting. Plus, as a business, you certainly should understand that there may be rules, laws, and the like you need to understand as apply to the business you want to undertake. I would certainly expect a business to verify things that they do with a lawyer for instance.

Almost none of this applies to a person doing things in their home (save if they run the business from their home). A average person in their house is not doing anything for profit, isn't explicitly interacting in the public sphere, and usually isn't expected to consult a copyright lawyer or contract lawyer etc regularly. It also seems to many, whether they are right or wrong, that copyright law wasn't originally targeted at non-commercial infringment.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[ngg]

>A taxi driver should know traffic laws or loose his license. And someone on Slashdot should know the difference between loose and lose.

A taxi driver with a loose license is shirley more likely lose it than is one with a firm grip.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[beowulfcluster]

In this case it's more like someone taking a song from someone elses demo and releasing it on your own cd and claiming you wrote it. I don't see many posts on here supporting that kind of behavior.

Also, if my mom barely knew much about copyright I'd tell her she shouldn't be in the business of publishing magazines.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Maudib]

I did read your post.

You can choose not to work with them, but its more convenient or profitable for you to throw the rest of us under the bus and contribute to the success of thugs intent on undermining civil society, stealing and bullying.

Sorry, but you are not an "innocent bystander", you are a willing collaborator. It should be our goal to make sure the sociopaths such as yourself suffer enough that you stop working with them.

I am all for property rights, real and intellectual. The Doctrine of Reciprocal Abuse is not a defense of stealing, its about causing as much economic hard to the RIAA/MPAA/* and their allies (you) as possible in order to persuade them to change their behavior.

See the latest link on slashdot?
http://www.slyck.com/story2129_MPAA_Dismisses_COICA_Free_Speech_Concerns

Go fuck yourself. I hope you go bankrupt.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

OK, yeah, I missed that....

I still think that there's a big facet of "doesn't understand" going on here.

She clearly does understand now. I don't think she did.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

I just don't understand how it's any different than using some peer-to-peer/bittorrent/whatever thing to illegally distribute the latest piece of crap pop music.

Yet we don't seem to have a lot of trouble with that, even when LimeWire, PirateBay or whoever is somehow making money off it.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

I've had plenty of family members die - I'm out of grandparents, my wife is out of grandparents, I'm down to one parent. The most recent death was 4 or 5 years ago.

I've also had a small business fail, entirely outside my control. That was 7 years ago I think.

The thoughts and feelings are very similar in a lot of ways. The same reactions, the same stages of grief, even.

The level of pain is not the same, but the reactions, for me at least, were very similar.

Of course, this was a business that was founded when I was 7 and was on its second generation when it went under - so there was some significant history there.

PS: fuck you too. You don't get to tell me how to feel about things or what is the right thing to feel. You can disagree without being rude about it. I'm sorry for your recent losses but it doesn't get you a pass to be an ass.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.

It doesn't seem that confusing to me. Slashdotters seem to be tolerant of individuals pirating material for their own use, and distributing it accordingly. But generally they seem to be opposed to people pirating things for commercial or for-profit purposes, or to businesses engaging in piracy. This magazine, which apparently had advertisers, was more like a business than someone merely posting recipes to their personal web page. The origins of the work may also be a factor, as you suggest.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm opposed to that. But I'd be more tolerant of it if there were no ads of any sort, or any other means of soliciting support -- such as donations / tips, merchandise sales, or even an upload/download quota as many servers have been known to have. If we're going to condone any piracy, it certainly shouldn't be commercial in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

That's really something that almost everyone, Slashdot or not, could learn. When you screw up, say you're sorry and don't make stupid excuses.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[cpt kangarooski]

Of course, Congress ultimately amended the law so as to support them, at least if they go about it in the proper method. Check it out at 17 USC 110(11). Myself, I never found it to be problematic; while it offended me as censorship, the same end result could be accomplished by careful use of remote controls, so it's not as though any real harm was done to the copyright holders. I feel for the kids, though.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

I see people saying I'm wrong, but where does the consensus fall on use of sampling of music?

I can't cite articles but I'd swear "we're" "in favor" (I know, gross generalizations) of artists being about to use samples of other artist's music.

And that most certainly is for profit.

Yes. She stole a bunch of people's recipes. (Recipes are kind of marginal from a copyright standpoint, apparently, which I didn't know.) And when she was caught at it she said stupid things that pissed people off.

For that, she was punished by losing her magazine.

If we want the home infringer to be fined a few dollars a song, that seems kind of extreme to me.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[cpt kangarooski]

The problem with copyright infringement with music is that the RIAA is going after the wrong people. They're going after downloaders, when it is actually the uploaders who are infringing copyright.

No, they're both infringers. Copyright isn't all about distribution. It is comprised of several exclusive rights, one of which is distribution (though there's a good argument that uploaders are really publicly performing it, not distributing it), and another of which is reproduction of a work into a copy, where a copy is defined as a material object. Since you cannot send a material object over an Internet connection, the fixation of a work into such an object has to occur entirely on the downloader's end. And since the downloader initiates the download, admittedly where an uploader has set automated machinery in place to respond to a command from a downloader, the downloader is the one responsible for the download, while the uploader is responsible for the upload.

Of course, when you're talking about offline distribution -- such as Alice burning a CD (making a copy) and giving the CD to Bob (distributing), then it would be fair to say that only Alice is liable. But this isn't what people have been getting sued for lately.

As for making copies of things for personal use, the law doesn't usually care. Making copies is infringing no matter what. There are minor exceptions here and there for fair use (which only applies if it is prima facie infringing, anyway), section 117 for software adaptations and backups, section 1008 for some sound recordings (though it is technically infringing, just non actionable, even in the rare case that 1008 is applicable), but usually it is going to be infringing. And off the top of my head, I do recall a case where a business made copies of an article for its own use, and this was found infringing.

I fully support reading the law. In particular, I'd look at sections 106 and 101, and I'd read them very carefully.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[milkmage]

nah. I still don't buy it.

she didn't boost stories from the NYT food section or any other established outlet.

if she didn't understand anything - its the power of the internet, and how the "little guy" can gain a lot of traction with a bit of luck and celebrity tweets (Gaiman and Scalzi)

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[gknoy]

If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.

If the subject were infringement of music copyrights for commercial gains, I'd have zero sympathy.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Skater]

Works for me. I don't use it anyway.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

No, she did boost stories from all over. She stole recipes from Paula Deen and other Food Network "celebrities," among others.

People with way more money and lawyers than she did. Someone no sensible business person would steal from if they thought it was wrong.

I don't think she's evil, I think she's just ignorant (and possibly stupid.)

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[metaforest]

It is one thing to fail... and have a child die through natural cause... It is quite another to strangle the tyke in the crib, or worse yet leave said baby on an open widow sill.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[mcgrew]

I can't cite articles but I'd swear "we're" "in favor" (I know, gross generalizations) of artists being about to use samples of other artist's music.

You're talking about fair use here; you're not talking about Madonna using a whole Metallica song and calling it her own like this woman did (and it wasn't recipes, it was articles lifted in their entirety), you're talking about taking a few notes and reusing them.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[imakemusic]

Sorry to hear about your family.

However, as for your business, if - like Cooks' Source - your business relied on using others work and passing it off as your own then good, I'm glad it failed.

You're saying it's a tragedy that her business of stealing others work and profiting from it didn't work out for her because she got caught red handed and acted like a dick when called out about it?

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[mikechant]

Totally bogus comparison. TPB doesn't store any illegally copied material itself, it just indexes it. It's equivalent to (say) a free magazine which makes its money by advertising and contains lists of *where to find* free copies of CDs and DVDs made by third parties, rather than actually suppling the CDs and DVDs itself. TPB is just an extremely specialist version of (say) google - which makes at least some of its ad money through people searching for 'illegal' downloads - google even has a special torrent search function.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Ritchie70]

I'm saying she probably was ignorant of the law, and, although everyone says that's no excuse, it is a bit of an explanation.

Based on her note on the web site, this whole mess has tipped it over the edge, and it's probably causing her a lot of pain.

Pity and sympathy, even for the wrong-doer, is part of being a decent human being.

Re:Have a little pity on the magazine

[Critical Facilities]

You definitely missed your calling....you should definitely try stand up comedy. You are an amusing little person, and have clearly been honing this oh-so-trying-to-be-eloquent freedom fighter character for quite some time. Nice character sketch. Somehow, I'm sure that in real life, you lack this pseudo courage and are probably one of those annoying little wisps who aren't worth my time. So you trot home to your computer, where you can type away, and be the big bad boogey man that you so wish you were.....but aren't....and never will be.

Good luck bankrupting me, hot shot. I make more money at my job than you probably ever will, and I choose to give away most of my music for free anyway. But before you get too excited, don't fool yourself into thinking that your home-brewed rebellion meant to stick-it-to-the-man would actually do anything. There are exponentially more people in the world who will pay reasonable amounts for content they're interested in, thus making poor souls like you completely irrelevant. I somehow think the HBO's of the world will survive your uprising.

I stupidity an excuse?

[91degrees]

She really seemed to not have a clue about copyright law, and continues to be oblivious. She started off assuming the web was public domain. Now she seems to be assuming that's unless there's a copyright notice attached. I don't believe her when she claims to have failed to check. Otherwise she would have been a little more apologetic.

Actually I think we might have forgiven her for this if she didn't then add rudeness. If she'd have said "I'm sorry, and while I'd love to give money to the universtiy we're a tiny business barely scraping by. Is there anything else we could do?" she might, just, have been forgiven. she didn't take this route. Probably because at the time she genuinely believed she hadn't done anything wrong.

Re:I stupidity an excuse?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Yes, assholes manage to convince themselves they've been wronged in all sorts of ways. It makes the crocodile tears more realistic. Women are practically magicians at it. I guess you've never seen a woman get angry at her boyfriend for catching her cheating? It's art.

Re:I stupidity an excuse?

[Lumpy]

Every single criminal in prison is convinced they were doing the right thing. It is rare for a criminal to say, "Yup I knew I was doing something really bad, I love to see fear and misery in people's faces."

Al Capone considered himself a hero of the people and fighting for the little guy.

Re:I stupidity an excuse?

[msmoriarty]

What it makes it worse is, that as an editor, knowing copyright law was part of her job (you have to understand this stuff to limit your company's exposure to any kind of liability, not to mention it's the right thing to do). And you're right -- her "apology" post makes it perfectly clear that she STILL doesn't understand it: if you're an professional editor looking to reprint something you ASSUME everything is copyrightable and get permission first, there's none of this "I didn't check" (just because the statement isn't there doesn't mean its not copyrightable). You don't just pull articles from books people send you (you have to get reprint permission if you want to publish a larger excerpt from it than what's covered by fair use, even if a publisher sent it to you for publicity). And you would NEVER, EVER start "typing up" an article you didn't get permission for (you get permission first -- if you're really so short staffed, you would never waste even a minute on an article you don't know you can actually use).

I've worked for years on small publications w/extremely small staffs and budgets and we'd never do anything like this, nor would any actual professional editor, because we all know it's wrong -- her excuses are bullsh*t. Add to that the complete lack of professionalism in her correspondence plus the fact that she simply CANNOT write (even content aside, that "apology" is awful), she's an embarrassment to the profession. I have no sympathy for her -- she brought this all on herself.

Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[commodore64_love]

For those who forgot the story: "... I observed one of my students with a group of other children gathered around his laptop. Upon looking at his computer, I saw he was giving a demonstration of some sort. The student was showing the ability of the laptop and handing out Linux disks. After confiscating the disks I called a confrence with the student and that is how I came to discover you and your organization. ----- "Mr. Starks of Helios, I am sure you strongly believe in what you are doing but I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom.... I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows." continued: http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2008/12/linux-stop-holding-our-kids-back.html

Later when Karen received a lot of internet attention, she tried to blame others. She should have been blaming herself (stole students' property, threatened a lawsuit against Helios), but instead filed a defamation suit against Helios.

Same applies to this woman behind Cooks. She has no one to blame but herself.
She says the author of the stolen recipe was wrong, but it was "Miss Cooks" who was wrong,
because of her poor attitude. She's like a thief caught at 7/11 - blaming everyone else except herself.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

And yes I feel a little bit of sympathy for this woman, but that's how the free market works. Bad businesses, like Cooks and Circuit City and Commodore, deserve to disappear and replaced with better businesses.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[drinkypoo]

I don't know about sympathy, but I am curious as to who taught her to lie like this. You don't publish a magazine without learning something about copyright.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[dunezone]

The whole blame everyone else but myself has really taken off over the past ten years at least in the states. Every time there is some incident everyone looks to blame something other then the person who was the cause of the incident. Remember the Virgina Tech Massacre? Every news outlet had some expert on blabbing their mouth about how it was wrestling, video games, depression, lack of strict gun laws, lack of loose gun laws, etc, etc, no one was just blaming the gun man as being crazy and it was his fault.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Well, if you follow the blogs of the first-round of commentators, they dug up some local newspaper articles with her name on them. Seems she's in and out of the local small-town politics, holding various town and county positions... and has the same stupid, defensive attitude when she performs badly there, too.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[capnchicken]

You know what though, Karen was handled with a lot more class. She only witnessed the gnashing of internet teeth, she did not feel their bite: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17874

Although if she then proceeded with an actual suit afterward, all fault would lie squarely on her, I didn't follow the story much after the Ken Starks defense of her.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[WuphonsReach]

Every news outlet had some expert on blabbing their mouth about how it was wrestling, video games, depression, lack of strict gun laws, lack of loose gun laws, etc, etc, no one was just blaming the gun man as being crazy and it was his fault.

Crazy gun man has no money.

If we can shift the blame to parties with money and wealth, we can sue them and get money/wealth for our own.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[JerryQ]

Where did you get this 'defamation suit'? http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17874

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[Anonymous Coward]

She's like a thief caught at 7/11 - blaming everyone else except herself.

That's not accurate. Some of use blame the voices in our own heads. No we don't. Yes we do. Leave me alone.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[commodore64_love]

Mr. Starks aka Helios:

"We're being litigated and my lawyer has stuck a size-12 boot in my mouth," because he had posted Karen's email online, and she felt she had been defamed. (Well yeah, that's what happens when you steal students' discs and threaten a lawsuit against a blogger; you get publicly embarrassed.) Anyway the case was later dropped.

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[capnchicken]

Do you have a link for that? I can't believe she actually brought lawyers into that mess after such a classy defense of her. I guess they smelled blood given his apology, which to some lawyers is actually pronounced 'mo-ney prin-TER'. America. What a country!

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[commodore64_love]

LINK - The quote from Starks/Helios is about halfway down. http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/digitalsavant/entries/2008/12/11/breaking_local.html

Re:Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen

[capnchicken]

Ok, now it makes sense, there were lawyers after the initial post but before the apology post. Thanks!

Learn to use apostrophes dammit!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the quality of the "writing" now on http://www.cookssource.com/ is anything to go by I doubt anyone's going to miss the magazine.

Re:Learn to use apostrophes dammit!

[jgreco]

It didn't strike me as being well-written. Perhaps there was a reason that they were borrowing content. Just a thought.

Pot, meet kettle?

[suso]

Its interesting to see all these comments in this article saying things like "Maybe she will learn to respect copyright and the labor put into copyrighted works next time" and so on because if this was an article about expanding DRM, the comments would be more along the lines of "Dirty bastards, I should have the right to listen to music and watch movies freely."

I realize that its not necessarily the same commentators, but still. How does that saying go, you can't have your cake and eat it too?

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Wolvenhaven]

That's why you have your cake, and steal someone else's and eat that one.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dirty bastards, I should have the right to listen to music and watch movies freely."

No one here actually says that. This nice little strawman gets trotted out whenever an article such as this makes an appearance, and it's still very inaccurate.

To sum up: /. is not wholly against copyright in principle. /. is against abuse of copyright, malicious lawsuits, financial murder.

How's that saying go: you're being deliberately obtuse. Please stop.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[commodore64_love]

Not the same thing.

We don't have a problem with home owners "sampling" a movie via the net, and later buying the DVD or CD legally. But we DO have a problem if that downloader started profiting from the practice... i.e. selling bootlegs. That makes them a true pirate. Just like this "Cooks" gal.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello strawman.

Being able to "freely" enjoy content you purchased is not the same as being able to enjoy content for free. If I buy a movie or a CD I should be able to consume its content on any device I own because I paid for it.

This magazine did not own or pay for the content and was instead trying to make a buck by passing it off as their own work. They deserve whatever they get.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[shish]

"I should have the right to listen to music and watch movies freely.

From what I've seen, the majority opinion is "I should have the right to use media which I have paid for, on any display device that I own, for non-commercial purposes", not "I should have the right to copy anything without paying, then profit from selling it on"

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[icebraining]

Yes, because DRM doesn't affect legal buyers of such products. Just ask the people who paid for AC2 when the Ubisoft DRM servers were down.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Jimmy King]

To be fair, there ARE a number of people on here who DO think they should be able to download whatever software, music, and movies they want, whenever they want, without paying. I've had a few discussions in threads around here about it. But, given the number of people on slashdot, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet that these are different people with different opinions which is something people seem to forget about on here when they throw a fit about slashdot users being hypocrites.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[dswensen]

Despite super-hilarious claims to the contrary, Slashdot is not a hivemind.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[suso]

Not the same thing.

We don't have a problem with home owners "sampling" a movie via the net, and later buying the DVD or CD legally. But we DO have a problem if that downloader started profiting from the practice... i.e. selling bootlegs. That makes them a true pirate. Just like this "Cooks" gal.

The problem with that is, most of the people I see downloading commercial content illegally DON'T go out and buy a license for it later. And I'm not just generalizing, I know a whole lot of people of all age groups and walks of life who do this. Then they start to do this repeatedly and think its so convienent and they can get away with it that they justify their actions and buy far less content licenses than they normally would, so then the content industry is indeed losing money on things that that person would have bought. So you see, you are stealing, even if you say its not.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Bieeanda]

Your song is not ours!

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[suso]

Yes but the current state of DRM exists because of the mass amount of people illegally downloading content online and copying it. Sure copy protection isn't new, but the industry has had to react to the extensive piracy that started in the late 90s with mp3s, movies and software. How do I know, because I was close to the whole thing, I was actually one of the first ones who received a cease and desist from the RIAA back in 1998 for mp3s that were on my webserver. I've seen the whole thing play out from nearly the beginning.

The irony of DRM is that the people who complain about DRM are most likely the same ones that caused it to be there.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Arker]

Not the same issues. Telling me to obey copyright law is one thing. Telling me that you will control MY hardware and prevent me from doing things that *might* be copyright violations (or might not, the hardware has no way to tell) is an entirely different thing.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[wcrowe]

Not quite the same thing. The objection to DRM is that it precludes a consumer, who purchased some sort of media, from copying it for their own personal purposes. There are very few (if any) people who would contend that media should be allowed to be copied and re-sold -- which is what Judith Griggs at Cooks Source has done.

Now, if Monica Gaudio were to insist that Judith Griggs had no right to print her (Gaudio's) article for Grigg's personal use, or even that Judith Griggs had no right to quote part of that article, then I would call Monica Gaudio a "dirty bastard".

What Judith Griggs should have done was contact Monica Gaudio and ask her to use her piece on the history of apple pie in Cooks Source magazine. Alternatively, Griggs could have written her own article, citing Gaudio as a source. It's really very simple.

What Griggs did was just stupid. She had an opportunity to interview Gaudio, talk about her original research, and write a good article about the history of apple pie, along with antique recipes. That's good journalism.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[icebraining]

Wrong. They chose to respond to piracy with DRM. It has been showed repeatedly that even in the time of internet file sharing, DRM-free content sells better than their counterparts.

"The stupid response to X caused Y" does not mean "X caused Y"

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[dswensen]

Silence the discord...

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[commodore64_love]

>>>downloading commercial content illegally DON'T go out and buy a license for it later.

I'm one of those. That's because the movie or show is shit and not worth wasting my precious dollars on. But if I like it, such as Star Trek the Movie or Stargate Atlantis, then I do buy it legally to support the writers, actors, and staff.

Of course if the movie/music/tv industry offered the same basic guarantee as Candybar manufacturers ("Satisfaction guaranteed, or return unused portion for refund"), I'd stop downloading completely because I wouldn't have to fear getting stuck with a shit DVD or CD.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[suso]

Maybe this never occurred to you, but copyright law doesn't give you the right to ignore paying for a license just because you didn't like something. Maybe that sucks (and believe me I can name several movies I'd like my money back on), but its still the law.

Re:Its sad really...

[imakemusic]

And the saddest thing of all is an editor who can't spell "it's" correctly in the very first sentence of their lame explanation for having stolen something.

Why do you think she wasn't writing her own material in the first place?

And the other articles she cribbed?

[Anonymous Coward]

In one of the blogs that sprang up over this magazine, people pointed out other articles and passages she had cribbed -- from the NYT to Wikipedia. The guiding principles of the magazine appears to have been "Fly under the radar; cater to people who are not web-literate."

Good riddance to a hack publication

[Skellbasher]

The internet detectives went back through previous issues and found that almost every article ever published in this mag was lifted from somewhere else. They never had an ounce of original content. All they did was take other's work and try to profit off it. Eventually they got caught. How anyone can feel sorry for them is mind boggling.

Re:Good riddance to a hack publication

[Vernes]

link to this sleuthing plz.

Re:Good riddance to a hack publication

[Skellbasher]

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238 They started a discussion group right on the Cooks Source Facebook page. 5 pages of links showing Cooks Source republishing content stolen from elsewhere. There's a blog somewhere else that took it further, I'll have to look for that.

Re:Good riddance to a hack publication

[Vernes]

Holy Xerox batman!

My favorite part...

[jejones]

... is the end of the page, where two large graphics cover the last part of the text, and beneath that is a link to something about Intuit web site building software.

Re:Its sad really...

[Kokuyo]

Even better: Did she not argue that her magazine's rewrite actually made the article, you know, better and more professional?

If THAT is what this woman calls quality text...

Sad copyrights....

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt copyright supposed to promote creativity and new stuff?
One more company shut because of copyright...
Whats published in the internet has become public domain! Get over it! Find other ways to gain money! Suing everyone will take us nowhere!

Re:Sad copyrights....

[Half-pint HAL]

But this new company was not being creative or producing new stuff -- what's your problem?

Copyright promotes creativity by protecting authors from getting ripped off by publishers who want to make money off someone else's work. Here justice is served.

HAL.

two words

[epine]

It's more than stupidity. If the snippy note had begun with the phrase "My understanding is that [content on the web is public domain unless accompanied by a copyright notice]" her appalling ignorance would have earned her a brisk education from the aggrieved party, and then she could have shot herself in the foot on the next exchange.

Robin Hood had the brains to hide in the forest while practising his unique brand of beneficence. Google had bags of coin to weather postbellum negotiation. Plainview had H.W. What was her plan?

Also, I don't get the whole "late at night, very tired" emergency fill thing. What's topical or time sensitive about the history of apple pie? Was it a theme issue on apple pie? An organized editor would have rescued something passable (and equally generic) from the emergency spike.

Re:Wait, people cook? Read magazines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, people make the "wait, people do something I don't" joke? What is this? 1991?

Cooks is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything on the Internet _should_ be considered to be in the public domain. Copyright is stupid and the whole concept of "intellectual property" is stupid as well. Owning ideas means keeping mankind back.
We can't fight the music mafia and demand true freedom of information and then condemn someone who claims the same freedom of information for his/her business.
Be true to your principles, free information everywhere and for everyone!

Re:Cooks is right

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't own an idea, dumbfuck.

Re:Wait, people cook? Read magazines?

[eleuthero]

Admittedly, some cooking magazines (Food & Wine) are more about things besides the cooking, but the recipes in it are quite fantastic if you are selective enough.

Looks like...

[pantheonwhaley]

justice is served (take off glasses) yeaaaaah!

Award

[bradgoodman]

And the 2010 "Half-Assed Apology" award goes to...

No - maybe "quater-assed" at best...

Apologies usually don't start with a 4 paragraph rant on rude the person you're apologizing to was...

This is no different from what YouTube are doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking other people's content and making money out of it without asking permission of the owner, or giving them recompense, is exactly what the owners of YouTube have created a fortune out of doing. I wonder how many of those prepared to condemn this woman are quite happy watching videos of their favourite band on the aforementioned site.

No excuse

[paiute]

This woman actually wrote: '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!'

That is not a slip of the keyboard or a typo or a mistake brought on by fatigue or overwork. That is a basic mindset. There is no argument or essay long enough that could make it otherwise.

The Writer's Thoughts

[TheSpoom]

The author's thoughts on the "apology" are here.

She basically had the same reaction we all did: What a load of crap.

"copy written"?

[wcrowe]

...copy written...

Wow. This Judith Griggs (who edits Cooks Source magazine) is REALLY in the wrong business. The word is copyright, Judith. As in the author has the right to determine who may copy their work. Not copywrite.

Judith Griggs is not qualified to edit her own letters, let alone a magazine.

Re:"copy written"?

[idontgno]

However, she almost looks overqualified to be a /. editor.

I keed, I keed...

Re:Recipes FTW!!

[TaoPhoenix]

Are you really sure that Recipes cannot be copyrighted? Do we need a way to ultra-public-domain stuff?

Check this out! Kurt Godel to the rescue!
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/chef.html
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/chef_fib.html

Can't be any more bloated than MS's code. : )

Summary of Apology

[idontgno]

"I'm sorry...

that I got caught."

Re:Summary of Apology

[Fox_1]

Recently I got a bug up my butt and complained about crappy service at the my local coffee shop.

In my complaint I said I had waited for 3 minutes before one of the two counter people finally addressed me and took my order. It was a simple complaint about slow service in an empty shop.

The reply from the coffee shop manager was ten paragraphs long. In it they gave several possible explanations for why the counter people didn't take my order ranging from being engaged in a business related conversation to unavoidable staffing issues. The reply also included a detailed timeline of my visit to the shop based upon the security camera footage. Literally detailed to the second. Apparently my rough estimate of 3 minutes was wrong, I had actually only waited 1min 43 seconds, and the manager made sure to point that out in their email.

My reply was less than polite and ended with:

"Was the point of your email to keep me from ever being a customer again?
In what way did you think the ten paragraphs below are a better response than
'Sorry, our bad, next ones on us.' ? "

Sometimes it makes more sense say "Sorry" and stop digging that hole.

Re:Summary of Apology

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd probably rather not have assholes in their coffee shop who can't wait a minute and forty three seconds for someone to take their order. It's not a great loss for them.

Nonsense Re:But but

[carlzetie]

Information doesn't "want" anything. Information doesn't have needs, goals, purposes or desires. People do. Using the expression "information wants to be free" merely clouds a complicated issue by loading one side of the argument with emotive, unarguable assertions. Who could possibly be against freedom? End slavery! Emancipate information! It's empty rhetoric of the worst kind. If you mean something substantive about the nature of information, please state it in terms that are actually amenable to rational debate.

Re:Nonsense Re:But but

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy, information, and money are all the same thing.

You're doing it wrong

[realinvalidname]

Was her mistake in stealing someone else's work, or in forgetting to wrap herself in some self-righteous "information wants to be free" codswallop?

Re:You're doing it wrong

[RapmasterT]

Was her mistake in stealing someone else's work, or in forgetting to wrap herself in some self-righteous "information wants to be free" codswallop?

I don't know what "codswallop" is, do you have a recipe for it? I promise not to reprint it for profit (not a guarantee).

"Its sad__really"

[Sean_Mc]

Judith Grigg's "apology" is in serious need of editing. I wonder how much she'd pay Monica to edit and publish it without permission.

Re:This is no different from what YouTube are doin

[Joe U]

Taking other people's content and making money out of it without asking permission of the owner, or giving them recompense, is exactly what the owners of YouTube have created a fortune out of doing. I wonder how many of those prepared to condemn this woman are quite happy watching videos of their favourite band on the aforementioned site.

You're blaming the newsstand for the infringing content in the magazine.

YouTube doesn't go out and grab copyrighted material and they do try to curb it when they are alerted.

Just the facts ma'am.

[GrantRobertson]

Thank you so much for introducing some actual verifiable facts into an otherwise entirely speculative argument.

Sometimes I think Slashdot should rename itself to "I think, maybe. But I'm definitely adamant about it."

Re:Just the facts ma'am.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sometimes I think Slashdot should rename itself to "I think, maybe. But I'm definitely adamant about it."

Where even the "actual verifiable facts" include disclaimers such as "from what I understand".

Wow, what a non-apology

[Just Brew It!]

Burying a one paragraph mea culpa in the middle of a rambling, whiny, self-serving "I'm taking my ball and going home" rant doesn't count as an apology in my book. Nor do I buy the story that she was just having a bad day when she touched off the original shit-storm, as the same arrogant attitude is still there. "I think I did a nice job for you"? I couldn't believe it when I read that; apparently she still thinks the original author should be grateful that her work was plagarized? W...T...F?!??

Re:Wow, what a non-apology

[JSBiff]

. . .as the same arrogant attitude is still there. "I think I did a nice job for you"? I couldn't believe it when I read that; apparently she still thinks the original author should be grateful that her work was plagarized?

While I don't totally disagree with your assessment, I think in that particular bit you quoted, she is referring to the fact that, as she stated earlier in the ramble, that she worked out a deal with the author and payed her a royalty.

I do think the Cooks' Source owner/editor/publisher tried to make things right in the end, it sounds like, but people won't leave her alone about this. While I think the owner was in the wrong, both in lifting the article without securing permission beforehand, and then to tell the other person that posting something on the web releases it "into the public domain", I do think it sad that this small business is going out of business because of one mistake, which she tried to make amends for.

Oh well, she'll probably relaunch it in a few months under a new name. *grin*

Re:Wow, what a non-apology

[Just Brew It!]

Even if your interpretation is correct, it is still a rather bizarre thing to say to someone she got caught stealing from. It is just one more piece of evidence that the editor just doesn't "get it". And while I'd be inclined to excuse some random Joe Sixpack for thinking that putting something on the web automatically releases it into the public domain, this woman works in the industry. It boggles the mind that anyone who works in publishing could be so ignorant of such a basic aspect of copyright.

It's mine, and I have a copyright

[DERoss]

One of my own Web pages is about the community in which I live. I originally put a copyright notice on the page in 1999. When I update the page, I make sure the current year is added to the copyright notice.

Real estate agents in the area have repeatedly plagiarized my page. Actually, they hired Web developers to create pages for their business; and the Web developers are the real plagiarizers. Thus, someone made real money from my effort. In the meantime, I got paid nothing. THIS IS WRONG!!

In the past, I would send a strongly worded "cease and desist" notice to the real estate agent to have my material removed from the agent's Web site. While this works, I think I will follow the example of Monica Gaudio and make a public complaint against the agent and the brokerage firm where he or she works.

I suspect many of you are hypocrites

[sertsa]

Yes, yes, yes. Copyrighted material should be respected. Yada Yada Yada. It's all a very sad (and somewhat humorous) story.

I can't help but wonder how many of you ripping the woman from Cooks Source (as wrong as she was) have songs you did not purchase on your iPods, copied and submitted without proper citation someone else's text in your research papers, etc.

Bunch of hypocrites. Really.

Re:I suspect many of you are hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many of those people with downloaded songs have tried to release them as their own works for profit, or even simply made compilation CDs from these tracks for sale?

Probably pretty close to zero, and if found out they'd be vilified here too.

Re:I suspect many of you are hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely different situation. In the case of me having songs on my ipod; I'm not making any profit from having them and the performer of the song is properly credited. I honestly don't get how you leap between that and ripping something off.

I can't help but wonder how many argument's you provide sweeping generalizations against.

The "apology" that isn't...

[RapmasterT]

This is in no way an apology, it's a plea for sympathy for consequences suffered at the hands of an unreasonable party...at least that's how she sees herself.

This is childish beyond belief. She responded to Monica's email with condescending sarcasm, and an attitude of "what are you gonna do about it". Then after she found out there WAS something to be done about it, she set about trying to spin everything as "I was GOING to be penitent, she just didn't give me a chance".

Doesn't this sound a bit like every shoplifter who ever got caught..."I was going to pay for it, you just didn't give me a chance?"

That's an apology?

[JohnRoss1968]

After reading that lame excuse for an apology, I'm thinking she should have just went on the web and copied one.

Terrible writing

[Skynyrd]

I can't help but laugh.
She whines about closing the business, but *damn* is her writing bad.

Learn to write.
Learn basic copyright info.
Try again.

Sociopath

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks the editor fits the profile of a sociopath? Refuses to take responsibility for her actions, continually blames the victim, thinks she herself is the real victim, etc.

Copyright, Fair Use, the true intentions of it all

[OffbeatAdam]

There is never anything wrong with wanting recognition for work done. It is your right, and you should demand it. Never should anyone ever stand for someone else getting credit for their hard work. That said, I can be completely honest when I say that I am afraid of the future. I am afraid of the future that holds a regard to copyright and fair use as it does in this situation. Was all of this really necessary? Was standing on a soap box and enlisting the army of the internet to troll this poor individual to oblivion, simply because you didn't get credit for your recipe? At which point does the matter go beyond being the right thing to do, to becoming pretentious or downright anal?

In grade school, I wrote a paper on a famous person. I couldn't quite come up with enough fluff to meet the overall requirements set forth by the teacher, so I lifted a paragraph from one of he sources, reworded it and turned it in without the citations. Ultimately, I ended up still getting knocked a few points for plagiarism. I complained, as any rebellious lazy teenager would have for getting points knocked off for what felt like impeccable work on my part to conceal the evidence. The point of the exercise went way over my head, as ultimately it meant nothing to me; I did not identify with the matter, and therefore it lacked any importance to me. As I've grown older though, I've come to understand what my English teachers were attempting to ultimately educate us on.

Many years on, reflecting on those lessons when reading this article, I feel as though perhaps they are teaching the wrong concept in school - or, maybe my understanding of the entire point of these protections is, for the post part, wrong. Today, it seems that a concept that has been around for 300 some odd years now, has within the last 10 years found itself skyrocketed into the poster child of public trolling existing today.

While it has been pointed out that the Cooks Source magazine has copied from many sources, I have to question the ultimate result of this overall situation. The magazine provided some pretty obvious services, none of which appeared in the least to be monetary for the proprietor. In raising the villagers, pitchforks in hands, the delivery of recipes and generally educational concepts to the probably desperately small group of frequent readers has now ceased. Granted, there is no shortage of recipe collections, however, it is reasonable to assume that there were at least a few individuals who enjoyed the material presented to them in Cooks Source.

This precedent scares the hell out of me. With the internet as its engine, bloggers as the fuel, and an impatient spark to top it all off, we now see the full power of copyright at hand. Copyright has now trolled an entire magazine out of business. This situation holds no difference to the situations that the RIAA and MPAA have placed upon the web in the form of patronizing and mass-suing for infringement of the same rights that the original author complained for.

The interesting thing of it all, is that we dwellers of the internet have our methods of trolling, be it 4chan or mass-traffic events caused through the slashdot effect, we have an innate ability to source the crowd as a whole and, whether it drives our opinion(s) forward or not, drive incredible amounts of traffic towards it to grant a distinct sense of popularity and substantiation to them.

On the other hand, groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and even the individuals like the original author here, have and utilize the exact same tools, although they have one additional tool that we do not. These doctrines like Copyright and Fair Use, all exist as physical manifestations in our real world. They are real - far more real than any conceivable publicity stunt we could perform through a DDoS or well written article.

As incidents like this occur, what stops someone from claiming fair use and copyright infringement on more important works? What happens when suddenly an object you use every day becomes an illegal work, beca

It would appear they are gone

[SirGeek]

Their site now just redirects to Intuit.

Recipes are NOT copyrightable!!

[Jeprey]

This is still nothing but a bunch of smoke. Recipes are not copyrightable! Never have been.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html