TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- "The internet has power to unite people across limitless distance."
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

"The internet has power to unite people across limitless distance."

Has anyone been reading about or keeping up with the Monica Gaudio v. "Cook's Source" story? It's turned into a discussion about the ethics, basically, of internet forums and the mob mentality that's created by them. I don't think TA is ruining peoples' lives, but apparently there are some forums that have zero moral restraints (yes, it's possible I just suggested that TA has morals).

Here's a blog to bring you up to speed:

The Day The Internet Threw A Righteous Hissyfit About Copyright And Pie
by Linda Holmes
November 5, 2010

quote:

So you might have heard a story yesterday about a little magazine called Cooks Source. Up until then, you might never have heard of Cooks Source. But maybe you've heard of "the Internet." Cooks Source now undoubtedly wishes it never had. On Wednesday evening, a blogger named Monica Gaudio posted a story in which she told of learning that Cooks Source had taken a piece she wrote about apple pie � specifically this one � and simply copied it into the magazine. As you can see from the scanned page (Gawker, for instance, has it), the magazine credited Gaudio with a byline. It didn't pretend to have come up with her story itself; it just seemed to believe it could copy her story and run it in a free, ad-supported (and therefore revenue-generating) magazine without telling her, let alone compensating her. Well, Gaudio says she dropped the magazine an angry email or two asking for an apology and a donation to the Columbia School of Journalism. The response she got combined three things that inspire online rage: misinformation, disrespect for creative people, and jaw-dropping condescension. In her recounting of what has become The E-Mail Blogged Round The World, Gaudio says that Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs sent her a note that said, among other things, this: quote: ...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!" (emphasis added) So, to sum up: everything on the Internet is in the public domain and can be copied and freely used by anyone, and if someone copies your work and fixes it up for you, you should thank them, because now you have a professionally edited clipping from the illustrious magazine Cooks Source, which you can use to further your career. I mean, could you have made up the part where Griggs says that Gaudio really should be paying her? (Besides, people are really going to be lining up to put Cooks Source on their resumes at this point, right?) So Monica's story began to get around. And it got around, and around, and around. (My own tweet linking to it was retweeted more � and more quickly � than I can ever remember happening with anything else.) The story first made it to online interesting-stuff-finders like Metafilter and BoingBoing, and in one of the Nuclear Events Of Social Networking, it was tweeted by Neil Gaiman. At this point, the Internet, en masse, descended on the Cooks Source Facebook page. At this point, of course, the very reasonable and often funny comments that supported Gaudio and condemned the magazine's actions were thrown into a giant whirlwind with the comments from people acting like violent, threatening creeps in support of what they considered to be justice. So far, of course, it was still tough to know exactly what happened, because it was mostly Gaudio's story, and Griggs and the magazine hadn't really spoken. But, as it does, the online mob then went in search of other examples, figuring that if Griggs really believes the Internet is "public domain," why on earth would she bother obtaining content the old-fashioned way? Wouldn't it stand to reason that many other things would also be swiped from online sources? So it began. In a Facebook discussion, people started to look for the sources of the rest of Cooks Source's content. They found items that certainly seemed to have originated from Martha Stewart, the Food Network, Weight Watchers ... ...oh, and NPR. (Here's the original.) Folks weren't just finding articles, either � it was about photos, too. What makes this story astonishing, really, is that unless it's an incredibly elaborate hoax, this isn't some isolated example. This is how this magazine apparently did business for years � and that lends credibility to the idea that Griggs may have honestly thought that she was allowed to just copy whatever she wanted from the Internet. Again, she was crediting the authors. Not always the sources, but at least the writers. It's a weird head-fake in the direction of treating people fairly, which smells a little bit like � just as she told Gaudio � she actually thought this was fair. There's much about this that isn't known, and it's important to hold to your skepticism about some of what's happened since this turned into a meme (for instance, some additional obnoxious responses showed up on Facebook yesterday purporting to be from Griggs, but not everyone thinks they actually were). Griggs hasn't been heard from directly since all this happened. Internet justice is always swift and often severe, which can be satisfying at a moment like this if you happen to be a person who creates content. At the same time, it's a really sobering reminder that in this case, the mob may very well be correct, but what would it have taken to slow it down if it weren't true?

Source:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/...pyright-and-pie

After all this, Cook's Source took down their Facebook page because people had been posting Judith Griggs's home address and phone number. There have been a million YouTube parodies of the situation. Cook's Source (sort of) apologized for their gaffe and I think people have generally moved on, but now the conversation has turned into the "mob mentality" of the internet, and how it can "unite people across limitless distance." (Before I get nailed for copyright infringement myself, that quote is from Brook Gladstone.)

In today's On the Media they reracked a quote from Matthias Schwartz, who was talking about 4chan at the time (or at least I assume, because he has no reservations about how much he dislikes that particular forum), to sum up why he thinks "the internet" does this from time to time:

"They do it for fun, they do it for a sense of release, and they do it because when you're looking at someone across a screen hundreds of miles away, you don't have to empathize with them at all."

I dont know if that's really the case for everyone, but whenever I read or hear about this story, I think about TA - my own beloved ethic-less forum.

COR version:
Magazine rips off an article from a blogger and calls it their own without telling her. Blogger gets mad and writes letter. Magazine writes back saying the internet is public domain and they can copy whatever they want, and she should be happy that they did it, and in fact, she should pay THEM. Internet throws a hissy fit, Magazine goes down in flames. Now media is peering into internet subculture and its general lack of ethics (despite victims usually deserving the flames).

COR version of the COR version:
The internetz are meen sometimes. Agree?

Cor version of the Cor version plz

OMG
edit: fine.

sounds exactly like "real life"

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie OMG edit: fine.

lool thx *KISS*

Personally, I find all this really vexing.

I don't think this the most unsettling example of how ruthless the internet can be: even here in the Chill-Out Room, there have been rather appalling hate-waves targeted at users that didn't fit in and couldn't deal with it. I used to stand for William Ashley in the beginning until he decided to "fight back", which is the worst thing he could possibly have done; and I tried to protect spacechica as ethically as possible, though there was little I could do in the end because of the sheer number of people involved - banning everyone involved would be a rather difficult task.

The internet often resembles a giant kindergarten, and I believe both the relative anonymity and the lack of face-to-face interactions are to blame, along with the "it's just the internet" mentality. Sure, you can't actively go out of your way and harm someone while you're behind a computer screen, though it's hard to believe some of the insults hurled by debaters at follow commentators on the internet would find their way in actual conversations if there was nothing but 20 centimetres separating the parties involved.

In the end, I really think that the whole of internet should be much more Facebook-like, threatening as it may be to "freedom fighters": If we all used our real names, actual pictures, and all the rest of the information available on Facebook elsewhere on the internet, I bet the cowardice inherent to human nature would prevail. Thus, Griggs would be a lot more reluctant to nick articles (because of the eventual changes in internet culture), and the rest of the internet wouldn't be a haven to upfucketry lovers just looking for an opportunity to vent their frustrations and/or hide under an alias so they can do whatever they want.

CORe version: Facebook should take over the internet.

cor version - if you can't stand the heat, get out of jennys way once a month.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira The internet often resembles a giant kindergarten, and I believe both the relative anonymity and the lack of face-to-face interactions are to blame, along with the "it's just the internet" mentality. Sure, you can't actively go out of your way and harm someone while you're behind a computer screen, though it's hard to believe some of the insults hurled by debaters at follow commentators on the internet would find their way in actual conversations if there was nothing but 20 centimetres separating the parties involved.

But do you think that people act more like themselves on the internet than IRL? I think the argument could be made both ways... that some people act out how they really want to be (or actually are) when they're online, and some people formulate personas or alter-egos.

Why being an ass behind a nick on a random board on the internet? Because you can. But once the internet starts knocking on one's front door, it can become kind of unpleasant. I still think it's odd that most c0rsters give out names, pictures and even addresses between each other, however I haven't been here long so what do I know...

quote:

Originally posted by Chimney Why being an ass behind a nick on a random board on the internet? Because you can. But once the internet starts knocking on one's front door, it can become kind of unpleasant. I still think it's odd that most c0rsters give out names, pictures and even addresses between each other, however I haven't been here long so what do I know...

I've met some awesome people from here. Some are a bit crazy, others are just totally normal away from here. It's not a bad thing and gives a good diversity.

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie But do you think that people act more like themselves on the internet than IRL? I think the argument could be made both ways... that some people act out how they really want to be (or actually are) when they're online, and some people formulate personas or alter-egos.

It's a distinction without a difference. That people behave differently in different contexts doesn't mean they are somehow being more genuine in one or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie But do you think that people act more like themselves on the internet than IRL? I think the argument could be made both ways... that some people act out how they really want to be (or actually are) when they're online, and some people formulate personas or alter-egos.

I don't think either case is true: we're no more ourselves on-line than we're in real life (though a misanthrope would gladly disagree with me here).

We're, as a rule of thumb, a very situational species, and the change of one variable is enough to make us behave differently. Dan Ariely, for example, pointed this out in his book "Predictably Irrational" through a series of studies: sometimes very respectful and polite students would behave like blithering sex fiends in certain situation, and honest people that wouldn't ever steal money didn't think twice before nicking soft drinks that wasn't theirs, for example.

In this case, this is something even the Greeks knew. In the myth of Gyges (told by Plato in the Republic, in case you want to look it up), a shepherd discovers a magic ring that gives him the power to become invisible - and hence non-punishable. Long story short, he killed the king, swooned the queen, and became the new ruler. In this case, the only difference is that no reign is at stake. That's what happens when you're anonymous: you can do whatever you want. Though it can be a good thing sometimes (like in the elections), unless you're a truther who thinks the government is after you and/or a criminal and the government is really after you, there's no reason why you should always hide under a screen name.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira killed the king, swooned the king,

Unfortunate implications.

Really, though, I don't think the internet so much as brings out a part of us as it does amplify what's already there. For example: someone who was big into practical joking or something would be twice as insufferable on the internet as they are in real life. A good friend of mine acts like an asshole online, but offline he's only really annoying.

quote:

Originally posted by Scrittah Unfortunate implications.

Well, he was Greek after all, and a drop-dead sexy one at that

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I don't think either case is true: we're no more ourselves on-line than we're in real life

I disagree. On-line you can be whoever you want to be, show a different side of yourself which otherwise wouldn't usually be associated to one's persona in real life.

I think we have to move beyond the myth that there is somehow someone we "really are" and someone else we are on the internet (or the other way around). Like Lira said, we act differently in different situations. The internet is just another situation, its just that it is so different from most other that the difference in personalities often is more pronounced?

Wtf; fucking plagiarism Lira!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Wtf; fucking plagiarism Lira!

It can't be plagiarism: I didn't see your post until I submitted mine and I did some research that wasn't available in your post

(though I'm surprised we gave pretty much the same answer - that's not exactly usual )

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It can't be plagiarism: I didn't see your post until I submitted mine and I did some research that wasn't available in your post (though I'm surprised we gave pretty much the same answer - that's not exactly usual )

A likely story!

I am actually curious to know what the rules really are when it comes to content put out on the internet. If I posted an essay up or something, I most certainly do not want someone else using it for their own personal gain. Did the blogger not have some sort of rights? Or, is everything and anything we put out there free material for whoever wants it?

EDIT:

I realize that other materials that are protected under copyright etc. have rights/protections. I am wondering about the regular jack and jill's who put things on the internet for their own purposes (blogs, forums etc.)

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I am actually curious to know what the rules really are when it comes to content put out on the internet. If I posted an essay up or something, I most certainly do not want someone else using it for their own personal gain. Did the blogger not have some sort of rights? Or, is everything and anything we put out there free material for whoever wants it? EDIT: I realize that other materials that are protected under copyright etc. have rights/protections. I am wondering about the regular jack and jill's who put things on the internet for their own purposes (blogs, forums etc.)

It varies by jurisdiction, obviously.

In the U.S., you instantly acquire a copyright in pretty much everything you publish on the internet, as long as it meets the minimum requirements for copyrightability. But if you're a U.S. citizen, you can't sue for infringement unless you register your copyright. And you don't. That doesn't mean you have no rights, however. You can still sue for damages, if you can show any. You can also recover any profits that you can show were made by exploiting your copyrights. And you can obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement.

Copyright registration is also not required before filing a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires the service providing hosting the infringing content to remove it.

If you're not a U.S. citizen, then congratulations! You get the full benefit of U.S. copyright laws without having to register, including the possibility of collecting statutory damages and (a pathetically small amount of) attorneys' fees. This is because the U.S. diplomats who negotiated our copyright treaties were fucking idiots who deserve to be shot and have their rotting corpses dragged through cow manure.

By the way, I am not a lawyer, much less your lawyer, and none of this is legal advice or a substitute therefor. If you rely on it in any way, you're a complete moron, and should probably kill yourself, so if you really want to know your rights you should consult an attorney.

Oh, and this post is copyright myself, 2010. I do not authorize any copying of it whatsoever. So, if you should happen to copy it into your RAM or hard drive by, say, viewing this web page, you are an infringer, and I reserve the right to pursue all available remedies against you.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa If I posted an essay up or something, I most certainly do not want someone else using it for their own personal gain.

i think you're safe.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think you're safe.

I think to be fully safe underneath anything she puts online, should be "if you steal this, im going to turn your balls into a kebab or puncture your ovaries"

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Oh, and this post is copyright myself, 2010. I do not authorize any copying of it whatsoever. So, if you should happen to copy it into your RAM or hard drive by, say, viewing this web page, you are an infringer, and I reserve the right to pursue all available remedies against you.

Quoted for emphasis....oh wait...damn

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.