things not to do on the Internet...

[lagilman]

Editor steals article for cookssource magazine; when writer complains says writer should be thankful: http://bit.ly/93EUqZ

You should not do this. You especially should not do this to people who know how to use social media. And you really, really should not do it where @neilhimself can comment....

Everyone repeat after me: copyright. It means that you have to get permission -- and, yes, sometimes pay -- to use someone else's work.

Anything else? Is theft. Period, end of story, no wiggle room. No, the Internet is NOT your cut-and-paste playground. And that goes for you students, too. Plagiarism will get you kicked out of any self-respecting school, and fired from any decent job.

For fuck's sake, people. Srsly?

Comments

[jennielf.livejournal.com]

I was wondring when you would comment on this...

It is SUCH fail. I think this tiny magazine has probably been doing this for a while and depending on being so tiny no one would notice...

Time's up.

[muntahz.livejournal.com]

On FB alone the magazine is enjoying a public spanking.
I wonder how many other writers will discover their work has been bettered and owe her money for editing.

[eldestmuse.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm in the middle of an Advanced Legal Research paper on how the internet has provided a technical innovation on the level of the Gutenberg Press in terms of how copyright law is/will-be affected and how people view it, and it's perfect for the section with Dorchester Press and Triskelion for how it's not just 15 year olds in their basement downloading illegal ebooks and music that are infringing and how copyright law is in some ways inadequate to the task.

Sent the link off to my advisor.

Although, fair use does allow you to get away with not having permission (in some cases) but you still shouldn't claim it as your own no matter what the circumstances are. e.g. I don't have to ask permission to quote something for a paper, but I do have to do the attribution right.

Just, god, fail. The idea that the author should pay the editor for "fixing" the mistakes (which were apparently purposeful and relevant to the article's historic background) is wrong on so many levels.

Also, the web is so incredibly not public domain oh my god. There are "domains" and the "public" can see it but just what.

I hope she sues. >.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

This makes the old Kinko's university photocopying fiasco look like a walk in the park.

If there was ever any doubt that people look at the internet as this magical free database of stuff, this should dispel that.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

talk about blaming the victim here. I hope the author sues the pants off of them, then gets them arrested for indecent exposure.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Apparently they also lifted an article from Disney.com.

Someone who works for them has been alerted.

Disney doesn't mess around when it comes to their copyrights.

It's also gone global- WashingtonPost picked it up, the Guardian ran an article as well.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/11/cooks_source_masters_new_recip.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/nov/04/cooks-source-copyright-complaint

That magazine is done for. It'll never recover from this.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Yes, absolutely.