|
"The internet has power to unite people across limitless distance."
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ang ' ela_ie |
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? |
|
|
| rT19 |
| Cor version of the Cor version plz |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
OMG
edit: fine. |
|
|
| pozz |
| sounds exactly like "real life" |
|
|
| rT19 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
OMG
edit: fine. |
lool thx *KISS* |
|
|
| Lira |
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 upetry 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. |
|
|
| Ian |
| cor version - if you can't stand the heat, get out of jennys way once a month. |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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... |
|
|
| Ian |
| 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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
