Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

cookssource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#41

Post by 3pt14159 »

AgentConundrum wrote: post #16

Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it. Copyright is the default, not the exception. Unless there's an explicit declaration that copying is OK (e.g. Creative Commons, other licenses ), you should assume you can't copy it. She gets no sympathy from me. In fact, her comments just push me further from her side.

That is true for the US, not necessarily the rest of the world. Not disagreeing with your point, just want to help out anyone that would take away what you said as hard fact.

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#42

Post by mtigas »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #22
adamesque wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that list of plagiarized articles is accurate, she certainly seemed to have it coming, but you'll have to forgive me if I can't feel awesome about the victory of asymmetrical internet mob justice over a small-time regional magazine. God forbid they ever smell blood in the water you're swimming in.

Phoning to say "you're an utter asshole", while not a nice thing to do, is still not exactly the same as lynching someone. Tone down the hyperbole a bit, please.

Sure, but thousands of people phoning in to say “you’re an utter asshole” — leading to the site’s closure — isn’t simply “not a nice thing to do,” though.

They got what they deserved, but if it ain’t “mob justice,” I don’t know what else to call it. The Internet, en masse, certainly has a pulse and life of it’s own.

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#43

Post by andolanra »

cs_1 wrote: post #25

It's really amazing how utterly contemptible this editor's responses have been. Rip off everyone else knowingly for months or years, then claim innocence and that it was an isolated mistake. Blame everyone else for your own actions and pretend that your apology was fake because people were mean FIRST, when actually the fake apology came first and THAT is what made them mad. Be offered a chance to make it up, denigrat…

If I recall correctly—I could be mistaken—some of the parts of the article that were supposedly "...in need of editing..." were the verbatim historical recipes, which used the archaic spellings found in the original documents (e.g. "To make pies of grene apples.") Which would make it even more entertaining, in a schadenfreude-filled sort of way.

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#44

Post by istari »

andfarm wrote: post #9

> But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article... Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it, 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. I did keep the author's name on it rather than outright "stealing" it, and it was my intention to contact the auth…

All of those magazines should pay her for cleaning up their sloppy work.

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#45

Post by ndl »

"If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda."

This is neither an a letter of apology nor an admission of wrongdoing, it's a statement of blame.

"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 "one writer in particular" directly after referring to the magazine's writers almost implies that she thinks Monica is one of their writers. I wonder if she thinks that the entire Internet are her writers?

I don't think that violating copyright is incurring her the wrath of the Internet. Plenty of people distribute content that isn't theirs, and usually they get sympathy when the big bad RIAA comes in. It's the fact that every time she gets called out on a mistake, she insults the victim. You can get away with being wrong or with being nasty, but not both.

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#46

Post by tptacek »

3pt14159 wrote: post #41
AgentConundrum wrote: post #16

Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it. Copyright is the default, not the exception. Unless there's an explicit declaration that copying is OK (e.g. Creative Commons, other licenses ), you should assume you can't copy it. She gets no sympathy from me. In fact, her comments just push me further from her side.

That is true for the US, not necessarily the rest of the world. Not disagreeing with your point, just want to help out anyone that would take away what you said as hard fact.

No, you're right, it's only almost the entire rest of the world that works this way. Google:[berne convention].

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#47

Post by studer »

cs_1 wrote: post #34
[deleted] wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> Maybe "she" deserves a serious wake-up call, but "they" most certainly do not. Being a two-person operation is probably why they ripped off most if not all of their content. "Craftier Internet denizens started to research more of Cooks Source's publications, discovering that other articles could be lifted from The Food Network, Martha Stewart, NPR and even Disney." http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299928 Not j…

"Because the writer in question had a copyright on her website where the article can be found, the content of the website is under copyright law."

Ouch. Surely there must be a better source than some junk written by a clueless "digital journalist" with the sole purpose of flooding search engines?

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#48

Post by mtigas »

3pt14159 wrote: post #41
AgentConundrum wrote: post #16

Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it. Copyright is the default, not the exception. Unless there's an explicit declaration that copying is OK (e.g. Creative Commons, other licenses ), you should assume you can't copy it. She gets no sympathy from me. In fact, her comments just push me further from her side.

That is true for the US, not necessarily the rest of the world. Not disagreeing with your point, just want to help out anyone that would take away what you said as hard fact.

Under the Berne Convention http://bit.ly/cxm7gA , you’ve got a vast majority of the world where “created works are protected as soon as they exist.” http://www.buyusa.gov/europeanunion/ipr_copyricht.html

Outside of Berne-recognizing countries, I think the chance of having a similar plagiarism-for-profit case is pretty slim.

Re: A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"

#50

Post by prawn »

[deleted] wrote: post #20
yalurker wrote: post #3

Wow, reading this didn't give me any sympathy for her at all. I'm reminded of the episode of South Park where Cartman feels bad only about getting punished, no actual guilt or remorse for his crime, and fails to understand how the other kids can feel bad in any way other than because of punishment. She steals someone else's work, gets caught and sends an arrogant, rude email with absurd claims (web is public domain)…

[deleted]

It doesn't sound like they really had employees and it's not as though they were compensating external writers fairly either!

I'm all for small businesses and these underdog publications, but this individual comes across as having had it coming and has an awful attitude.

If the interest is there from her audience, then someone will step in to fill that void, and hopefully they'll have more sense when it comes to fairly sourcing content for a new magazine.

Post reply on HN