Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
from the no-surprise-there dept
Judith Griggs, the editor of Cooks Source, who discovered that mocking a woman whose article she copied, without permission, in her magazine resulted in international attention, has now given her first interview about the whole thing, in which she admits that she was wrong and suggests she's probably going to close down the magazine. Yet, while she definitely seems apologetic, it does seem like she's more apologetic about the fact that this came back to haunt her, rather than for her actions:"I feel so bad for anybody now who has bad publicity because people can be so horrible," Griggs, 59, said in her first interview about the matter. "I don't know if I'm going to continue Cooks Source. At this point, it's looking doubtful."While folks like Mathew Ingram are wondering if the punishment doled out was too much, others, such as Steve Butry make the point that "she wasn't contrite when confronted with the error, [but] only when exposed," while also pointing out that plenty of good businesses fail, and if there should be sympathy for failing businesses, it should be pushed in their direction.
I will admit that as much as I think social mores can be an effective regulator of certain types of behavior, I am also always a little wary of pure mob justice, because it can grow like an avalanche -- and if a mistake is made, and someone is improperly blamed or the mob lashes out without all the facts, the results can be devastating. I'm not sure I know what the proper answer is here, other than to hope that enough information is clearly provided before such mob justice lashes out. In this case, I tend to agree with Butry. The woman's response to being caught was clearly inappropriate, and so it's difficult to be too concerned about that publication going out of business.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, judith griggs, mob justice, social mores
Companies: cooks source
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Rabble Rabble Rabble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She was uninformed on IP over the internet. That's about 99% of people.
I agree she wasn't nice about it, but at the same time, I have no issue with what she actually did. It shouldn't be illegal. It should be fine to reproduce work like that.
If someone takes this extremely well written post, edits it a bit, and prints it in their magazine, with no credit to Anonymous Cowards everywhere, I don't care. I don't care if it took me years of research to generate this post.
I don't want her magazine to fail over it. It's just not that big of a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Should she loose or shut down the magazine over this? I am on the fence about that but she most certainly was responsible and saying "I didn't know better" just does not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to have to be a copyright lawyer to start a magazine.
My take is that she heard at one point that 'recipes aren't covered by copyright' (true) and ran with that concept, not realizing what constituted a recipe and what was a 'narrative expansion' thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said before, the very nature of her role requires her to know these things or acquire advisors that can help in understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, most lawyers who aren't specialists in this area don't understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think I'm with AC on this one. We're always talking about how copyright is broken, how it doesn't work in the digital age, giving examples of how copyright SHOULD work. And now we're crucifying this lady because she ognored how copyright DOES work. Isn't that a bit two-faced?
Yeah, I'm having trouble finding sympathy for her, but that's an emotional response to the tone of her reply. She was kind of a jerk, but I don't think anything she said is particularly untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
She is being crucified for being a complete b*tch.
I actually agree that she should be able to use the woman's blog post as part of her magazine; however, she should have credited the original source (not because of laws, because of ethics) and she should have responded in a reasonable manner once the current state of copyright was made clear to her.
Instead she lashed out at the original author and then mounted her high horse to respond to people who were defending the original author. If she (or anyone) had spoken directly to me with the tone of those e-mails my palm would have been itching to slap her (although I don't ever hit people.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She did give credit, she just didn't TELL the author about it. From the linked Techdirt article, "They did put her name on it, but she only found out after a friend spotted it and told her about it."
she should have responded in a reasonable manner
I agree, but I think it's mostly just a case of bad people skills. Tone is hard to discern in text, and it can be read as her saying, "I should have not creditted you" or "you need to pay ME for the publicity," but the same words can be interpretted as "we credited you, where others might not" and "we're giving you free publicity." It can even be read as "you're attacking us because we creditted you" because if they hadn't put her name on it she might never have even found it.
I'm not sure why she balked at paying $130 to a charity, but it's not terribly unlike some other authers swinging their weight around and demanding payment.
My point is, if the editor didn't SOUND like a bitch -- and that may be a complete fluke of the text medium -- then her stance isn't any different from what we usually promote here at Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's one poster's opinion. Another opinion might be that I have spent years article writing, I am a professional writer, and I make my living writing, and that it should be my choice as to whether or not an article I wrote appear on a website. I may freely give that article to do with as you wish, but I don't believe you should simply take it, give me no credit for it, and mock me when I call you on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This wasn't a case of being uninformed, this was a case of attempting to abuse someone who WASN'T misinformed who subsequently called her out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She tried to sound like she knew what she was talking about, and was aware of the law! In her ignorance she only made herself sound less sympathetic so when the Mob got hold of it - they pounced! Judith, her magazine, and her website got destroyed - out of her ignorance and nothing else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Her response can be described with varying levels of stupidity, arrogance and ignorance and I'm sure she's heard them all by now as have her advertisers.
It's long past time to let go.
I'm wondering how many still angry posters here have even bothered to look at the publication in question. It's a one person operation and while it looks nice it has amateur stamped all over it. None of this excuses or justifies her response to Ms Guadio's extremely generous settlement offer.
Under the extreme pressure of getting the publication out she fired off an "apology" that was anything but and added a few lines of insults besides. Before we continue to crucify her perhaps we need to look at ourselves and the number of times we've done the same or something similar. Even stupidly in an email.
One person operation or not that was anything but the right way to deal with it.
With that I also need to say that I'm not surprised at her ignorance of copyright law. Most people that run rural and semi-rural publications like hers have very little understanding of IP laws beyond what someone tells them. Before anyone chimes in to say she "ought" to have educated herself I have to ask just how many, even, large publishers packed full of legal leeches, do given the number of contested DCMA takedowns that they have to back track on.
Keep in mind as well that these sorts of publications are an important, if not vital, way that rural and semi rural citizens keep their lives, histories and lifestyles going instead of being drowned under big city MSM crud that thinks we're culturally ignorant lumps of clay because we can't attend the opera of a regular basis or like country music too much.
It's our way of communicating our culture which is as valid and, often, as lively as that of the big city.
There's part of me that hopes she doesn't go down under this and part of me that does.
I'm hoping that she has learned a lesson here, though.
(Under the same circumstances I'd have dashed off a quick email thanking Ms Guidio for her email and offering to speak later once the edition was out to discuss the settlement offer.)
Let her be now. It's over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be nice
All you have to do is be nice, that's all. Behave like a normal human being and not like some 12th century feudal lord.
Is that too much to expect from a business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be nice
That irks the crap out of me.
If she had just apologised, there would have been no backlash.
I would have apologised, if it had been me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playing the victim works a lot better...
"I feel so bad for anybody now who has bad publicity because people can be so horrible".
Too true! People CAN be horrible. For instance, they can yoink an article you put together, put it in their magazine w/o even bothering to let you know they did so, and then whimper about how horrible others are when they get taken to task.
Sorry...I'm w/the mob on this one. And one thing I noticed the mob hates is when people can't be bothered with common courtesy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
It's hard to say what a mob wants at any given moment, but I think in this case they were actually looking for Cheetos.
There is one certain lesson we can all take from this, however. No matter how right or wrong you may think you are... never taunt a mob. Especially in real life kids. Snark is right out!
Here's to hoping we never have to apply that lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
I wonder if she realizes that she's actually the horrible one in this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
Such a odd reaction got her creamed, however. The mob may be the mob, but the mob tends to be fairly providential, IMO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
It's the mob that carries the reaction, not one person yelling. You don't direct mobs, you just avoid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
Think about it: if she'd courted the mob, the mob probably wouldn't have showed. The mob loves to back a victim....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal? or Sinner?
Given the "I'm sorry I got caught." attitude...
Given the attitude La Griggs has evinced, I come down on the side of "criminal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cooks Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What made it egregious was that she then lambasted the original author, because she was so certain of the facts she never bothered to check.
What makes her a "not nice person" is that she didn't apologize once her mistake was pointed out.
What makes her worthy of being the source of the term "Griggsed" is that she is only sorry she was caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: quitter
"I don't know if I'm going to continue Cooks Source. At this point, it's looking doubtful."
That is far from a clear declaration of intent. From where I sit it sounds a whole lot more like a teenager's petulant threat to run away from home in the hopes of garnering some unwarranted sympathy.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: quitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: quitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sympathy? I don't think so.
She didn't get run out of business because mean people said nasty things about her because of one mistake. That would be unjust, and I would stand up and say "Hey - she made a mistake, and people make mistakes."
She regularly misappropriated other peoples' writing. She showed no contrition, and refused to make the minimal restitution requested by the injured party. She even went so far as to mock them, referring to her decades of experience in the editing field. Her business, it seems, regularly used other peoples' work without requesting permission, paying, or even, in some cases, attributing them correctly.
That's not cool. That's not one mistake. That's a pattern of dishonesty. The advertisers were hurt by her actions.
We're in an age of transparency now. Dishonest behaviour WILL come back to haunt you. People WILL find out the scummy things that you did, and they WILL see how you deal with being confronted with your mistakes. Had she been contrite, and made restitution, she'd have been able to continue to work.
Eventually, someone would have found other misappropriated works. Someone would have sued her for copyright infringement. She was playing Internet Russian Roulette, and it was only a matter of time before somebody did a search found an infringement, and brought it to the attention of one of the big media companies. It was inevitable because the internet never forgets. It's going to be interesting to see how business behaviour changes, as their past never quite goes away.
I am sorry to see that she's going to shut down the magazine, but only because that will make it harder for the ripped off authors to get any restitution.
I'm sorry that her actions harmed her advertisers.
But I'm not sorry that "the mob" was all over her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ask the "music industry" they will tell ya.
But they are against just 6 billion people so who cares really, we all know how it will end.
In such cases where there is no doubt anymore I'm all for mob justice, not physical. For good or for bad this is how it has been done for millenia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A review of past publications of Cooks Source magazine found more than 160 other examples of pirating articles and images from other websites, including such big wigs as Disney, Food Network, and Martha Stewart. While these facts were not known in the beginning, when the Internet machine swung into full speed ahead, the Machine turned up these facts as a part of their drive to expose, expose, expose. While your statement has merit, it is not relevant in this instance, because Judith is not an innocent party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
With your *words*, anyway.
SO, now I expect you to RETRACT on:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101001/15475611255/starbucks-staffer-claims-he -was-fired-for-turning-off-wifi-to-block-porn-watchers.shtml#c681
You used "claims" to set the tone and got your flash mob stirred up and railing at a mere employee who was put in a difficult spot, without help from managers, he *did* ask them to stop, was physically threatened, then ended up getting fired. I invite everyone to read my post of the *actual* account by the first person himself, the "barista", and compare it to your slanted take.
Let's not have any hedging about "was reported" or that your actions didn't dirctly lead to the firing, that'd already happened. --Nope, your words there were blatantly wrong in what you reported and quite unsympathetic.
Time to walk the walk, Mike, and at least corrct your mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
Did Mike get *facts* wrong or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
So what facts did Mike get wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
Look. I *know* your technique: endless questions.
Above, I state the facts Mike got wrong, but I'll repeat some. -- I've already said there that "was reported elsewhere" is *no* excuse: wrong facts are wrong facts. IF you report wrong and learn that later, then you must retract so far as possible. That's what must be done in order for Mike to be consistent. -- I don't *mind* if he isn't: that's pretty much my point with this.
The "barista" by his own statement (which I credit far more than Mike's third hand version) *did* the obvious: asked managers for advice or to intervene, asked the customer to quit and was threatened with physical violence, informed other customers of the problem and temporary outage, and only then pulled the plug. Problem solved, except for the "barista" *actually* got fired for doing the obvious.
Mike got *every* relevant fact wrong, besides slanting it with "claims". Since his words that I quoted above exactly refer to getting facts wrong and damage resulting when mobs run rampant with the wrong facts, I remind him of this "ancient" item, which I'm sure is still affecting the "barista". -- I seem to be the only one even cognizant the "barista" *is* a person: read the "fire the idiot", "let's have them serve naked", and "he's got health insurance, can risk getting assaulted" comments (MY paraphrases, before one of you guys quibble that those aren't quotes).
Now, nasch, will you please just simply state whether you believe MIke got the facts right? If you don't answer that question, and only come up with another question, consider yourself as holding the wrong position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
They're only endless if you don't answer them. ;-)
I guess we need to quote from Mike's source's source:
"...[he] went through all the steps, asking supervisors, calling managers, and even looking through the employee handbook (which not only said nothing about this act being against policy but actually explained how to do it) before cutting the public Wi-Fi."
So the 1st-person source didn't mention anything about asking the customers to stop. Is that the fact you claim Mike got wrong? You say he did ask the customers to stop; however I couldn't find any mention of that in the Consumerist article. If I missed it, do point it out. I haven't seen anything else you mentioned that contradicts anything Mike said.
Now, nasch, will you please just simply state whether you believe MIke got the facts right?
As far as I can tell, yes, he did.
If you don't answer that question, and only come up with another question, consider yourself as holding the wrong position.
You don't get to dictate the terms. If you convince me I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I don't have to consider anything just because I ask more questions than you're comfortable with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ NASCH Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
JUST READ THE BELOW. YOU ARE REFUTING THE FIRST-PERSON.
But fine, keep doing so.
======= start paste ========
"Jim, I told you the following when I sent you this:
1. I did ask the men to leave. One guy threatened me with physical violence, the others told me that they had the right to be in the store.
2. I told the customers who were using the wi-fi for legitimate reasons what I was going to do. I asked them if it would interrupt anything, I asked if it was okay, they all said to go for it.
I turned the wi-fi back on maybe 10-15 minutes later, after the offending people had left.
The supervisor told me to go ahead and do it.
The employee handbook has a page on "If you want to turn off the wi-fi, here's how" and lists the steps to do so. Otherwise, you can call the Enterprise Help Desk, who will walk you through the steps.
My SM and DM were well aware with the problems with porn and bootlegging at the store.
I had no prior corrective actions, save for a few tardies in early 2009.
Posted by: Xan Gordon"
======== end paste ========
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ NASCH Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
Seems to me that 1. an update would have been in order if someone had pointed that out at the time. I read the comment you linked and you didn't do anything like that; maybe someone did somewhere but I'm not going to go read all the comments. Is there any point in updating the story now? Maybe so, I don't know what kind of traffic TD gets on back stories. 2. Mike did nothing incendiary or that I would characterize as stirring up an online mob. 3. What were we talking about again? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ NASCH Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
To your #1. YES, the truth is always the truth. Why do you oppose a correction? -- Also, if you were concerned, why didn't you READ ALL as I asked, instead of making me back you into a corner? Not that I mind.
#2: Nonetheless, a "mob" verbally lynched Gordon based on what Mike wrote. It may be "involuntary mob-launching" and minor, but it was based on wrong info put out by Mike, and I can't abide his statements above in similar circumstances.
#3: We're discussing Mike's integrity and arrogance, and also those of readers here. He doesn't deign to (or dare to, or care to, take your pick) defend himself. The only curious point is why you did (I hope past tense).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ NASCH Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
2. You seriously think the criticism of this guy is because of Mike? Really?
3. I don't particularly care who I defend, I just tend to question things that look incorrect. And your claims looked suspicious based on what I read. So I asked you about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gee, for once I agree with you, Mike.
I quote and point at you - "Time to walk the walk, , and at least corrct your mistake."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Weasel than Weasel
It is not really an apology at all, as nobody takes credit for this statement.
Dan Crowley, staff writer for the GAZZETTENET.com's Daily Hampshire Gazette, in his quest to politely bring light from the real Judy Griggs, failed to ask some important questions.
@ChurchHatesTucker (Re: Re: Re:), I believe that you are correct, she was honestly confused, but that doesn't excuse her subsequent behavior as a business person, period.
@ElSteevo and @Dark Helmet, I couldn't agree more.
@ac, sorry, but this is one lesson that she should walk away from with haste. At least until she has taken some college courses to bring her back up to speed in the modern era. I think the curriculum in the university of hard knocks is too hard for her and she needs to look for training to become employable again.
It seems to me that this is a case of a person who thinks that she is much more than she is. She doesn't seem to be grounded in reality where it comes to her own limitations and abilities. It is as if she has inflated her self-worth and believes she has learned more than she actually has. I am of the opinion that she should spend a few semesters at a local college campus to re-learn life. IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Weasel than Weasel
It is not really an apology at all, as nobody takes credit for this statement.
Dan Crowley, staff writer for the GAZZETTENET.com's Daily Hampshire Gazette, in his quest to politely bring light from the real Judy Griggs, failed to ask some important questions.
@ChurchHatesTucker (Re: Re: Re:), I believe that you are correct, she was honestly confused, but that doesn't excuse her subsequent behavior as a business person, period.
@ElSteevo and @Dark Helmet, I couldn't agree more.
@ac, sorry, but this is one lesson that she should walk away from with haste. At least until she has taken some college courses to bring her back up to speed in the modern era. I think the curriculum in the university of hard knocks is too hard for her and she needs to look for training to become employable again.
It seems to me that this is a case of a person who thinks that she is much more than she is. She doesn't seem to be grounded in reality where it comes to her own limitations and abilities. It is as if she has inflated her self-worth and believes she has learned more than she actually has. I am of the opinion that she should spend a few semesters at a local college campus to re-learn life. IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
at duplicate post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe she deserves it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people just have no class.
She was a total jerk and an unrepentant thief.
This whole nonsense reminds me of an incident from the 50's with a comic book publisher. The "stole" a short story and adapted it. When they got caught red handed, their response was to give the author the royalty he was due. They didn't act like the original material was free to plagarize.
That kind of response was what was missing here and why the reaction of the Net was so heated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some people just have no class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
2. The complaining by the internet mobs is not about the copying, it's about how she's behaved since the author complained to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
2. Fair enough, though I'm half-willing to believe this is (a) mostly just bad people-skills and (b) the Internet misinterpretting what was meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
However, your use of "plagiarism" and "fair use" together confuses me. The two are not very closely related, since plagiarism and copyright infringement are two distinctly different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
* to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
* to use (another's production) without crediting the source
* to commit literary theft
* to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source."
"Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work." "(emphasis mine)
I could go on. I've found lots of definitions of plagiarism, and every one of them includes a reference to not crediting the original author, and/or passing off the work as one's own. So, either I've convinced you of that point or not, it's up to you. Nothing more I can say about it I think.
the general sentiment around here does seem to allow for (though, not necessarily encourage) both unauthorized republication and "close imitation." That's my only point.
Yes, I think the general idea is that culture would be better off if such activities were more freely permitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
Maybe you can interpret this for us:
"We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!"
It makes sense if the **AAs are going to start paying "pirates" for promotion and advertising. Or pay viewers compensation for lost time watching/listening to their crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sociopaths are like that
His answer was "I'm sorry I got caught". He had no remorse or feelings for the victim at all.
I strongly suspect that this nasty bitch has no concern for anyone or anything but her self.
Hoping she goes down hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Going the "arrogant stuck up clueless editor trashed a source author" and got caught doing it. Then made the most un-apologetic apology I've ever seen. Then only seems to care that she got caught.
The copyrights is broken - she attributed so not plagiarised.
Want to argue the copyright angle be my guest... but the outrage and mob smack down were for being "publically" arrogant, incorrect, and effectively refusing to show any remorse or common decency.
try reading the blogosphere... or hey heck even just the article and the preceeding comments... this same point has now been made more than 2 times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thus, when I read comments supporting the copyright holder and vilifying the copyright infringer, I am immediately struck by the fact that people here seem to be running to the defense of the copyright holder.
BTW, the only reason the infringer was publicly "outed" was because a ticked off copright holder decided to go public and portray herself as a victim in need of mob support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement is not what the masses are upset about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are upset about an infringer who gave a somewhat rude answer to a copyright holder. Persons generally do not like rude people.
Of course, this is a somewhat different story when the infringer (direct and/or contributory) giving rude answers is either someone like Pogo, or Joel Tenenbaum, or Jammie Thomas Rassert, or sites like The Pirate Bay, and the copyright holder is a label, movie studio, author, musician, etc.
The former is viewed as a victim of a rude person, whereas the latter is viewed as receiving his/her/its just desserts.
The disparity of treatment could not be more apparent, and is a classic example of a double standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's get back to the "facts"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]