That's not the point. Journalists make money off the newspaper, magazines make money off the article. Simply because it is a book, it is fair game? Or do you think all interviewees should be paid?
I don't have a timeline in front of me, but clearly Mitnick was in the news - I remember when he got busted.
I don't know the facts in this case, but just because you grant an interview for free doesn't mean they can make a movie about your life. If that was the case then fair enough.
What Mitnick said was he didn't grant the interview because Markoff wouldn't pay him for his time.
Besides the fact that no journalist I've ever worked with would ever pay anyone for an interview (yes, I've worked in journalism), I think the whole idea that you deserve to be paid for telling your story is bogus. If you really care about it, you'd tell it for free.
Again, I'm not saying Markoff is some great journalist, I'm reacting more to the way Mitnick (and others, it seems) believe that anytime someone wants your time you deserve to be paid. Change is not created by people who sit around waiting to be paid.
As a side note, if Mitnick had said he decided not to grant an interview to Markoff because he was an anti-hacker one-sided reporter, I would be behind him one hundred percent. But all he did was whine about money.
I basically agree with you and Markoff sounds like a moron. But maybe Mitnick could have elucidated him a bit. Just because Markoff's job is to interview Mitnick doesn't mean Mitnick deserves a piece of the action.
It's a gray area, for sure - but I still feel Mitnick would've done better (and many people like him) to just give the interview.
If you really have something to say, then it is worth saying for free - if you require money to defend yourself publicly, then perhaps you should rethink your priorities.
Of course it's not "fair". But when someone comes around to write a book about you, you should think twice before just saying "no money, no talk". That's a very short-sighted view of things.
Again, maybe Markoff didn't deserve an interview for a lot of reasons. But if Mitnick doesn't grant the interview of course the book will be one sided. If he had granted the interview and then complained about Markoff he would have alot more credit as far as I'm concerned.
Well perhaps if Mitnick had chosen to talk to Markoff instead of demanding money, Markoff's book would be more even handed.
I haven't read the book, and it sounds like a piece of trash, but it is really sad that the only reason Mitnick didn't get in the book is that he was more focused on cashing in on his fame than on speaking the truth.
I find Mitnick's idea that he should get recompense for telling his story to Markoff a bit silly.
First of all I have no clue about what kind of man Markoff is - if Mitnick wants nothing to do with him for character/ideological reasons, fine.
It is common journalistic practice not to pay anyone for their story. If you're doing an article or a documentary and you pay people to talk to you, your interview is ineherently suspect. A lot of people will talk to you and say all kinds of things if you give them money. If you don't give them money, then you at least know they are saying what they want to say, not what you want them to say.
Personally I think Mitnick's story was a travesty of justice - I totally sympathize with him and feel he was unjustly jailed. However, perhaps if he had thought less about cashing in on his notoriety and more about speaking the truth, Markoff's book would've been more even handed. Maybe then Mitnick would've approved of the film that eventually was cancelled.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the point. Journalists make money off the newspaper, magazines make money off the article. Simply because it is a book, it is fair game? Or do you think all interviewees should be paid?
I don't have a timeline in front of me, but clearly Mitnick was in the news - I remember when he got busted. I don't know the facts in this case, but just because you grant an interview for free doesn't mean they can make a movie about your life. If that was the case then fair enough.
What Mitnick said was he didn't grant the interview because Markoff wouldn't pay him for his time.
Besides the fact that no journalist I've ever worked with would ever pay anyone for an interview (yes, I've worked in journalism), I think the whole idea that you deserve to be paid for telling your story is bogus. If you really care about it, you'd tell it for free.
Again, I'm not saying Markoff is some great journalist, I'm reacting more to the way Mitnick (and others, it seems) believe that anytime someone wants your time you deserve to be paid. Change is not created by people who sit around waiting to be paid.
As a side note, if Mitnick had said he decided not to grant an interview to Markoff because he was an anti-hacker one-sided reporter, I would be behind him one hundred percent. But all he did was whine about money.
I basically agree with you and Markoff sounds like a moron. But maybe Mitnick could have elucidated him a bit. Just because Markoff's job is to interview Mitnick doesn't mean Mitnick deserves a piece of the action. It's a gray area, for sure - but I still feel Mitnick would've done better (and many people like him) to just give the interview. If you really have something to say, then it is worth saying for free - if you require money to defend yourself publicly, then perhaps you should rethink your priorities. Of course it's not "fair". But when someone comes around to write a book about you, you should think twice before just saying "no money, no talk". That's a very short-sighted view of things. Again, maybe Markoff didn't deserve an interview for a lot of reasons. But if Mitnick doesn't grant the interview of course the book will be one sided. If he had granted the interview and then complained about Markoff he would have alot more credit as far as I'm concerned.
Well perhaps if Mitnick had chosen to talk to Markoff instead of demanding money, Markoff's book would be more even handed.
I haven't read the book, and it sounds like a piece of trash, but it is really sad that the only reason Mitnick didn't get in the book is that he was more focused on cashing in on his fame than on speaking the truth.
I find Mitnick's idea that he should get recompense for telling his story to Markoff a bit silly.
First of all I have no clue about what kind of man Markoff is - if Mitnick wants nothing to do with him for character/ideological reasons, fine.
It is common journalistic practice not to pay anyone for their story. If you're doing an article or a documentary and you pay people to talk to you, your interview is ineherently suspect. A lot of people will talk to you and say all kinds of things if you give them money. If you don't give them money, then you at least know they are saying what they want to say, not what you want them to say.
Personally I think Mitnick's story was a travesty of justice - I totally sympathize with him and feel he was unjustly jailed. However, perhaps if he had thought less about cashing in on his notoriety and more about speaking the truth, Markoff's book would've been more even handed. Maybe then Mitnick would've approved of the film that eventually was cancelled.