×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

290 comments

But but (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253086)

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 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253148)

Bulllll Shit.

Re:But but (0, Offtopic)

stoned_hamster (1531291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253152)

*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 (0, Offtopic)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253184)

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

Re:But but (0, Offtopic)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253244)

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 (0, Offtopic)

PrinceAshitaka (562972) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253314)

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

Re:But but (2, Informative)

s122604 (1018036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253750)

No actually it wouldn't

I believe the poster is referring to William Tyndale

Re:But but (2, Informative)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253824)

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

Re:But but (2, Informative)

RJHelms (1554807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253488)

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 (1)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253842)

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 (2, Insightful)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253732)

"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 (2, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253800)

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 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253264)

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 (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253286)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253432)

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 (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253790)

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

YAY !! ANOTHER COPYRIGHT INFRINGER BITES THE DUST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253126)

Yay ! ! ! !

Opps, I doodie

Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip! (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253140)

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! (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253232)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253630)

The gaul of this woman ...

Any relation to Asterisk?

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip! (4, Funny)

Kyont (145761) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253640)

The gaul of this woman

Yes, the French are really just incorrigible that way!

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253770)

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! (5, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253242)

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! (2, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253674)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253256)

> 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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253418)

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! (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253444)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253530)

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

Re:Whining, Excuses and a Guilt Trip! (0, Troll)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253822)

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.

rtfl (1)

stoned_hamster (1531291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253142)

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

Re:rtfl (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253156)

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 (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253408)

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 (1)

upside (574799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253438)

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 (2, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253182)

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 (0, Troll)

whong09 (1307849) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253404)

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.

Theft should be treated as theft... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253162)

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.

TCP Connection (5, Funny)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253176)

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 (1, Redundant)

loutr (626763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253644)

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

I do prefer your explanation though ;)

"Didn't notice" copyright? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253202)

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? (2)

Skater (41976) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253278)

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? (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253462)

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".

Its sad really... (2, Funny)

cindyann (1916572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253234)

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.

Re:Its sad really... (4, Funny)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253428)

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?

Re:Its sad really... (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253526)

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...

Good bye! (1)

mnslinky (1105103) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253248)

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? (0, Offtopic)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253250)

What is this? 1990?

Re:Wait, people cook? Read magazines? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253734)

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

And? (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253252)

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, but only because nobody bothered to ask first. 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.

Learn from this and move on, because few are interested in the sob-story.

She Bragged on facebook (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253258)

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 (2, Insightful)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253260)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253308)

> 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 (4, Insightful)

Skater (41976) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253330)

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 (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253492)

>>>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 (1)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253356)

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 (4, Insightful)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253536)

...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 (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253376)

"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 (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253442)

- 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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253702)

"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 (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253848)

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 (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253478)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253496)

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 (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253504)

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 (2, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253594)

>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 (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253518)

"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 (2, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253540)

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 (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253570)

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 (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253612)

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 (4, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253624)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253636)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253652)

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 (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253718)

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 (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253768)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253804)

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 (2, Informative)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253832)

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 (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253844)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253852)

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.

I stupidity an excuse? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253288)

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? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253588)

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.

two words (1)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253708)

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.

Reminds me of that AISD teacher Karen (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253302)

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 [blogspot.com]

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 (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253352)

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.

Learn to use apostrophes dammit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253310)

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

Re:Learn to use apostrophes dammit! (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253850)

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? (1)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253328)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253398)

"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? (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253802)

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? (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253562)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253574)

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? (1)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253692)

"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? (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253756)

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.

And the other articles she cribbed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253430)

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 (3, Insightful)

Skellbasher (896203) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253434)

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.

My favorite part... (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253470)

... 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.

Sad copyrights.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253556)

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!

Cooks is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253816)

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!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...