A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"
cookssource.com
cookssource.com
That she continues not to use apostrophes throughout the post and gets other things wrong ("I never ment to hurt"), pretty much sends the message that "I don't really know what I'm doing" and "I just don't really care." If, as an editor, she doesn't understand basic rules of punctuation, then is it any surprise that she doesn't understand copyright?
If, as she claims, the magazine is going to go out of business, the real culprit is the editor's lack of knowledge about the business she's in.
After all, we wouldn't feel sorry for a chef who had to close his restaurant after it was revealed that he was violating health codes. Why should we feel sorry for an editor who still doesn't understand copyright, even after having gone through this whole episode?
Yet, at some level, I do feel sorry for this person in a sense that I can best describe through an anecdote.
I once had to fire one of my employees (an attorney) who had been with me no more than a few weeks and who produced atrociously bad work when measured by the standards that apply to legal work in the startup area (which must technically meet high standards or else). This employee was a very nice person but, as I saw her work in various contexts, I realized that she was basically in way over her head. The details are not important, except to note the following: as I was explaining the reasons for having to fire her, she had this astonished look in her eyes, as if, all through her schooling and prior work experiences, no one had ever been straight with her about her shortcomings. In essence, she truly didn't have what it took ever to be good in this field (I did not put it to her that bluntly, of course). As I talked with her and tried to encourage her in any way I could about her future, I was literally grieved to realize that this young lady had essentially been coddled all the way through the school system in a way that left her to hit a cold wall of reality only after having likely wasted all kinds of time and money in pursuing a career for which she was not at all suited. This was one of the saddest encounters I have ever had. Though I was the one who had been short-changed in the relationship, and hurt financially owing to incompetent work, I could not help but feel profoundly sorry for that young lady.
I would say that this editor too is a sadly misplaced person for her chosen field and that this whole episode has essentially exposed that fact in a very public way. There is something quite tragic in all this, even as it is hard to sympathize either with her position taken in this fiasco or with her clumsy (and unwise) attempts to defend the indefensible. Above all, this must have been a severe embarrassment and humiliation for this editor, whether or not deserved, and at a human level I am truly sorry for her.
It reminds me of fixed mindset people, which Ron Burk describes in this 5-minute Ignite presentation, The Psychology of Incompetence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vcy7I0zIM
* Over-estimate their own abilities
* Hide, minimize, and blame away failures
* Solutions shouldn't require hard work (effort is for less talented folks)
* Avoid seeking help/training
* Are easily frustrated by setbacks
It's beyond pitiful - in the literal, not pejorative sense - how many people manage to get through our so-called higher education without so much as the ability to communicate on a sixth-grade level. I guess all I can do is teach my kids the value of what it means to love learning, and how to communicate their thoughts and ideas well. The system obviously hasn't figured out how to make that happen yet.
And yet, it is far better for a failing business to be forced to close and for someone that cannot handle the job to be removed from the position than for them to continue to be coddled by employers or society.
I must respectfully disagree with one statement you made though. You said, "she truly didn't have what it took ever to be good in this field". Clearly, I have not met this lady, but I am a great believer in people's ability to change. Perhaps success in the field would have required that she learn more, work harder, and perhaps even alter her personality, but I suspect all of those things would have been possible if she truly wanted it. Such drastic changes are likely rare, but they can be done.
I actually kept him on and let it drag out three months without him producing anything because I couldn't get up the nerve to face the fact I'd made a mistake. Not just a mistake, but a mistake that would screw someone else's life up that I respected and liked.
It all worked out well - he's becoming a doctor at one of the top English schools now, so I wish I'd done it earlier so he could have gotten on with his life, and I'd have had a lot less stress and my business would have done better. Wavering on it made him dead man walking for three months, and cost me personally $10,000+, more if you count opportunity cost, much more if you count stress. So I gotta say you handled that the best possible way, even though that situation is always hard and always sucks. Someone who hasn't managed people probably can't understand how hard it is to let someone go and do it decently. Sounds like you did right by her in the best way for that situation.
While this obviously created a huge furor, I'd say at least 100x more people know about Cooks Source than did before. Instead of figuring out a way to relaunch the site, she basically committed suicide with a "they'll be sorry when I'm gone", poor-me kind of letter.
Instead, the editor took the opportunity to further expose the traits that caused the uproar in the first place - self-importance, arrogance, and ignorance. The "apology" is no more than a half-hearted attempt at deflection and a misplaced plea for pity. It will both fail to deflect the bad press, and will not garner any pity.
This is an excellent lesson in how to not handle customer relationships, management of negative press, and fixing your mistakes. Entrepreneurs, take note - look at what Cook's Source did, and don't do that. Always assume you are at fault first. When you are at fault, go the extra mile to make it right. If you get caught with your pants down, join the chorus laughing at your embarrassment and use it as an opportunity to market your underwear.
Brilliant line. I might just quote that at some point.
If I had to guess, I'd wager that's why she doesn't understand copyright. Her area of expertise (and I use that word with a HUGE grain of salt) is food and local business.
Similarly being a journalist (which is about research and writing) is very different to being an editor (which is about organisation and the commercial side of things).
That said, her level of knowledge seems insufficient for either role. The basics of copyright law would seem to be a pre-requisite for anything involving writing these days.
Can we just do the "put yourself in their shoes" thing for a moment, and consider that she may be heart-broken by all of this, and typed that note through tears? Have you ever attempted to write a note (typed or hand-written), under extreme stress, pain, or frustration? I know I have. It wasn't pretty.
Please, some compassion.
Zero skill, knowledge or emotional togetherness required.
I take it you're in the Commonwealth? A US copy of Word shouldn't flag that.
You Americans should get that spell checker bug fixed though. ;-)
She steals someone else's work, gets caught and sends an arrogant, rude email with absurd claims (web is public domain) and then when she is hit with the internet backlash, she writes a post that it's not her fault because she was overworked and throws in an insincere apology where she still clearly doesn't believe she did anything wrong ("I think I did a nice job for you").
The original article didn't irk me nearly as much as her rebuttal. Quite frankly, if this really does put them out of business, they deserve it.
God forbid they ever smell blood in the water you're swimming in.
How would you feel if your start-up was ripped off? Would you want HN people to rally around you, or would that be "mob justice"?
And what if it turned out the same people were also ripping off, say, Microsoft and Apple and several other large corporations?
If everyone had been so civil and polite, they wouldn't have felt pressured to shut down.
I don't know about you, but I'll take Facebook comments and phone calls over getting served with papers from half a dozen massive legal departments any day.
Lawsuits are expensive even when you're innocent.
If the penalties are draconian for not even distributing but just "making available" mp3s with NO commercial intentions whatsoever, what do you think the penalties are going to look like for massive distribution of hundreds or thousands of discrete willful infringements for profit?
This so-called mob justice is immeasurably nicer than what the actual legal system would have done to them.
While there may be some elements of criminal law that might apply, in all probability this would have been a straight civil case rather than a criminal matter with the writers claiming damages for the work published without permission. She could have accepted liability (or even not done so), paid them (which would likely have been relatively limited given the pieces she's used - it's not like she's been grabbing major scoops from the NYT) and moved on.
The chances are that the writers would be no more interested in racking up legal bills that she would so costs there would have been minimal. Basically she gives each one of them a few hundred dollars, they give her a letter saying it's OK to run the piece.
She was in the wrong but the punishment (essentially being forced out of business) doesn't really fit the "crime" and the legal remedies would have been far easier on her than the mob was.
It would not have been kind to them.
Nobody "forced" them out of business, they voluntarily quit when they realized their sham was exposed.
In aggregate, their behavior easily qualified as multiple felonies; and damages alone would most likely have been ruinous.
I know I would not want to roll those dice.
So I think you're mistaken about essentially everything you said above.
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.
That isn't why they closed.
Think what would have happened to them if they stayed open, from the ACTUAL non-mob-justice legal system.
It's in my comment just a bit up:
------------
Hi Folks!
Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry -- my bad! You did find a way to get your "pound of flesh..." we used to have 110 "friends," we now have 1,870... wow!
Best to all, Judith
They have postings going back to December 2009.
In the wall area, if you click on "Filters" and then "Just Cooks Source Magazine", you'll see that post I mentioned, which Facebook says originates from the Cooks Source Magazine Facebook page.
Maybe I'm getting confused somehow?
Regardless, I think we can all agree this person is clearly in the wrong industry and still has little personal accountability for her mistakes.
That's exactly what I thought upon reading this. And the reference to South Park is gold :-)
Deleted comment
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 just articles, but also photos, discovered with TinEye.
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?
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic...
Same primary source regardless of what outlet covers it.
NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/11/05/131091599/the-...
Economist: "A host of Facebook and other denizens have traced over 100 other articles that have appeared in the magazine to The Food Network, NPR, Martha Stewart, Sunset, and others. A Google Docs spreadsheet maintains the list."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/11/internet_sham...
The list:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmTaIPHPnkSedGFhbHo...
Over 160 entries just from recent issues that people could find copies of.
How would one go about finding the sources en masse from a set of articles? What tools would be used?
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.
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.
The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.
Additionally, The Berne Convention makes copyright automatic in countries which observe it. This image, also from Wikipedia, shows the Berne signatories in blue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berne_Convention_signatori...
While my post is "not necessarily [true] for the rest of the world," it is true for an awful large portion of it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protec...
Outside of Berne-recognizing countries, I think the chance of having a similar plagiarism-for-profit case is pretty slim.
And I suppose the author was also "bleary-eyed" when she plagiarized all the other articles which were identified as having been taken from other cooking magazines?
"Facebook has not responded at all; not taken these advertisers name off this bogus site -- or remove the site completely -- and takes no responsibility that someone unnamed can just create a page that can suggest that people"
The entire internet is public domain, except for her site, I guess.
In school, that's called plagiarism, and you get thrown out for it...
Why should it be so different in the real world?
NB: Probably not in this particular case.
1. I will never understand how their brain puts them in the right for every situation they've ever been in
2. No amount of arguing or facts will get in the way of #1
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.
I'm not defending this woman as she did do something wrong. However, I think it's distressing that people are celebrating her "defeat," especially as (I would guess) most of her critics are avid supporters of pirated content. Isn't there some statistic about how every American violates some copyright law just about every day?
Cooks Source was a small, free, regional publication--the kind you ignore at the dentist's. This doesn't excuse Cooks Source and doesn't mean that Monica shouldn't have taken issue like she did. But in the end, I just don't see a david vs. goliath story: I just see a bunch of people ganging up on one person.
Copyright survives precisely because it is not enforced 100% - if it was followed by the letter, everybody would very soon see that it's not a good idea, crippling culture and turning the participation in public discourse on its head. This is also why there are rules like Fair Use - to acknowledge that there is an area where copyright is just not producing any net worth for society.
That said, you cannot then go on and follow that because it is rarely followed to the letter by regular people, the whole system isn't working. I see the recent "liberal" approach to cultural content as a plain opposite and equal reaction to the decades of capitalizing on culture. The media industry had their way for a good while and very nearly fully commercialized it (which is why, even today, you see people arguing that artists wouldn't produce art if they weren't paid for it) and now that the sole purpose of their existence (distribution of cultural content) is done better, cheaper and more efficient by regular people do they circle around themselves eating their own young.
I see the Cooks Source incident as a very weird example of a regular person behaving as entitled as the big media corporations do (or compare, for instance, the various Timbaland "situations" we've had over the years) - she is not in a position where she can act like that, but others clearly CAN.
These are all symptoms of a change that is clearly happening, but the outcome will not consist of those symptoms. Or at least I hope that it does not.
It read like:
-excuse -excuse -excuse -excuse -excuse -sorry -excuse -excuse -excuse
I see this as a fundamental, and probably generational change in the way the public thinks about copyright, and it'll be fascinating to see how the legal system "catches up" with public expectations. It could well be that when people like her get into positions where they're making the decisions about whether to extend Disney's Mickey Mouse copyrights even further, they'll be sitting there saying "WTF?", and perhaps_ bringing some sanity back to copyright laws.
I hope some artists and creators survive long enough to see that day...
It may be the "Disney era copyrights" are just a temporary anomaly in "the way the world works", in a similar way to the ~30 year "profitable album era" was for the music industry...
I disagree with your earlier statement that this might be a new way in which the public "thinks about copyright", it is rather the new way in which it is /misunderstood/. So I'd say we shouldn't confuse the mounting ignorance in the general populace (which is, mostly, attributable to just the sheer amount of stuff that is out there - logic usually fails when something gets too big to follow) with an actual shift in consciousness. There is a need to rethink a lot of this, but that shouldn't be about "how do we break the old thing", but about "how do we create a new thing" - and that is where efforts like CC come into play.
So I don't really disagree that this is a widespread phenomenon, I'm just saying that it will not be where the change comes from in the future. That is, of course, unless reality is particularly cruel to us.
Many of who is against copyright and patent are libertarian radicals and anarcho-capitalists. They are one of the least likely to be caught red-handed with not understanding how copyright and patents work.
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, denigrate the offer, then cry and lie later about not getting a chance.
This newest statement is so rife with errors, I gotta say:
"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"
I also like how she makes it out to be about one blogger, when it turns out Cooks Source stole articles and photos from sites for The Food Network, Oprah, and Martha Stewart. They would have been sued out of existence anyway.
"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."
Pretending it's about one blogger, when in reality it was the collective actions of thousands of people that the editor pissed off. And pretending that her apology was affected by events that hadn't even happened yet!
"I really wish she had given me a chance to respond to her before blasting me. She really never gave me a chance."
So ripping people off is okay, but pointing this out is "blasting someone". And of course she got the chance to respond, her fake apology was included in the initial post and was what pissed everyone off. "The Web Is Public Domain", the headline that GOT all the attention, is from her response, the one she claims she never got the chance to make.
"But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article..."
Anyone can make a mistake, but the research shows they ripped off most if not all of their material, on a constant basis.
"Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it."
Except that any editor knows that EVERYTHING is automatically copyrighted. Oh yeah, and also they ripped off plenty of stuff from big commercial sites which was obviously copyrighted and said so explicitly.
And then she was informed directly by the author that it was copyrighted, so that there was no confusion, to which the editor responded: "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!" [...] "We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!"
And then...
"To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance."
She DID give the editor a chance. She just asked for a donation to the Columbia School of Journalism amounting to 10 cents per word.
So at the end, when you're finally about to face the music for a MULTITUDE of misdeeds, try to distract and cover for them all by copping to a single incident with a single person and then claim it was an accident.
Nothing is ever your fault!
It's difficult to comprehend this level of depravity.
Hanlon's razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
She doesn't understand copyright. That's the beginning and end of the problem.
I think a quote from Zed Shaw's rant on trolls is warranted too:
"I restrict my ranty words to assholes I feel are hurting other people, and I can take it as good as I get it. You got something to say? You think I fucking suck? Rock on, go ahead and say it.
But, you better fucking know your shit, 'cause I sure as hell do."
Monica knew her shit. Judith didn't. The battle was over before it started.
In fact, this article is full of basic mistakes even spellcheck can correct.
She’s an editor.
I'm sure she feels extremely sorry for herself right now but for all intents and purposes she is simply a thief.
"we have had so much hate email (over 400 pieces) , phone calls and regular mail."
If we let anonymous mobs have this much power, the world — the real, flesh-and-blood human one, not the virtual one of Tweets, blog posts, comments and LiveJournal feeds– is going to get worse, not better.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/16/congrats-self-righteous-int...
Already happened!
[1]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VlsfWx1...
"I didnt notice it was copy written"
Assuming she means "copyrighted," damn. This individual is shockingly ignorant about the business of writing. The author of any work automatically receives copyright to that work (unless it's a work for hire, etc). It's that simple.
I want to believe no one can be that obtuse, and this line is just one more of the weak post-rationalizations she's offering for obvious bad behavior.
But my sympathy ends there.
Sadly that response tells me she's learned nothing from all of this and can't see beyond her own bloodied nose.
I'm not a fan of the mob mentality that drove the harassment she received. Its amazing what people will do once they're convinced they're right
Maybe it wan't sincere enough for you, fine. But in any case, what she did is less horrible than what has since been done to her. I have no doubt that "harass" is the right word, no doubt that her advertisers are being contacted, her voice mail stuffed, and her mailbox filled.
Based on what? How's this different than suing companies for silly shit? Its only different because you're the judge. An armchair judge. This should have been handled privately. Like adults. This is drama..a soap opera...stuff of tabloid.
Someone has wronged me and I'll unleash the internet on them.
Put your pitchforks away.
(Why this doesn't extend to violating copyright on music, movies, and games is beyond me.)
You can't make something like that go away. No amount of apology is going to change the fact that you don't have the requisite knowledge to be in the publishing business. The only correct response is to go back to the drawing board and learn your shit before you come back to work.
Well there you go, and they didn't need to write the 2000 other words on that page which were all excuses - no one forced them to be a publisher.
They copy and pasted and planned on begging for forgiveness later being easier than asking permission. Or maybe not even being noticed at all.
Google even has a public-domain/creative-commons search option which they didn't even bother to use.
I think she has known all along that she's been running her business illegally by stealing other people's work without permission, and because she was never confronted about it until now she became emboldened to continue to expand her illegal practices.
I think she's acting ignorant, and it does not feel genuine to me at all. Anyone who claims to have been employed as an editor for 3 decades certainly knows what is legal and illegal. She just figured that she could get away with it -- and when confronted she decided that "the best defense is a strong offense" so she attacked the author verbally and tried to belittle her -- thinking perhaps that the author would simply back away and 'disappear' rather than assert her rights.