Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain 565
Isarian writes with a story, as reported on Gawker and many other places, that "Cooks Source Magazine is being raked over the coals today as word spreads about its theft of a recipe from Monica Gaudio, a recipe author who discovered her recipe has been published without her knowledge. When confronting the publisher of the offending magazine, she was told, '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!' In addition to the story passing around online, Cooks Source Magazine's Facebook page is being overwhelmed with posts by users glad to explain copyright law to the wayward publisher."
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is a $1.5M verdict when you need one?
Seriously, though, I'll bet half the folks complaining on Facebook have illegally downloaded music themselves.
cookssource.com appears to be down (Score:3, Interesting)
Please help by finding copies of their graphics, stylesheets etc. on the 'net and posting them on your own site. It *is* public domain, after all.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a huge lie. Everything on the web is in fact public domain.
Well... Intellectual works aren't the sort of things that can be public domain or not, but rather they might or might not be in the public domain. However that said, yes, all intellectual works on the web are in fact in the public domain, although what is at issue here is whether or not they are in the public domain in law. Not every road that exists in law exists in fact, and vice versa, and this applies to works being in the public domain too.
"Cook's Source Magazine" trolled the internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at whois, "cookssource.com" was registered six months ago.
Now a lot of people know who they are, so points for Slashdot giving them free advertising, as well as anybody else who clicked through to such an obvious "HEY LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY." Look for a statement of contrition and a re-launch with original content (which they probably already have on the backburner).
Suckers!
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:1, Interesting)
If you take umbrage at reselling pirated copyrighted work, then your objection is with the copyright violation. Because people legally resell 'free' information every occurring moment.
If you don't support copyright, then logically the selling of someone else's copyrighted work is not hypocritical; just don't then expect protection of 'your' work, because that _would_ be hypocritical.
Now everybody is checking up on them (Score:3, Interesting)
Various people have already identified material there from the Food Network, Martha Stewart Whole Living, NPR...
Someone should run Cook's Source through TurnItIn, which has a comprehensive plagiarism search.
They just got hit on by the Los Angeles Times and Publisher's Weekly. Advertisers are reported to have canceled. One article reads "How to Kill Your Magazine".
Stumble Upon (Score:2, Interesting)
Anybody who has used Stumble Upon (or similar) knows how much people swipe from other sites to put on their own to make money from adwords and the like. I even Stumble Upon'ed a picture I took of my own cat that somebody found from my personal site and put captions on and published. It was ranked #7 in the top 100 on the site which I found rather amusing.
Re:Copyright threshold (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right saying that the steps to reach a goal are not IP. You're wrong however in claiming that writing the article word for word which contains these steps is not IP. They are. The lines are further destroyed by the fact that the product created by those steps is an original creative work.
Lets say I wrote an article on how to change a tire. You cannot copy that article word for word. It's plagerism. I don't own the steps but I own the words. Lets say I wrote an article on how to create a special prototype tire that I came up with. Even though I outlined the steps to create it, I still own the design of that special prototype. The steps to create it in this case are not the part being copyrighted, but rather the design itself is. Using these progressive cases as examples, it's now a short leap to understanding why an original recipe is in fact IP
Re:Copyright threshold (Score:2, Interesting)
Plagiarism is not copyright violation. To understand the difference, think about whether you could hand in a copy of Shakespeare's Othello for an English paper at school. While the work isn't copyright-protected, that would be plagiarism.
I'm simply stating that a recipe cannot be copyright protected.
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, a ten-year, maybe twenty-year copyright term should suffice. Is Universal making money off of Back to the Future III still? Is Fox still getting money from Die Hard 2? Is Nintendo getting money from Super Mario Bros. 3? Well, Nintendo might be, but they're greedy bastards. Otherwise, no, there's no real profit being made. Heck, even if you make the copyright term 30 years, that still puts things in the public domain quickly enough for them to be of interest. But with the current 95-year term, you know what goes public domain this year? "The Birth of a Nation", "The Tramp", some Irving Berlin songs, "The Metamorphosis", and the last Sherlock Holmes story.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
just like I'm wrong when I speed even though I justify it by saying that everyone else is doing it.
You should get a better analogy. Exceeding the speed limit because everyone else is also speeding is right in the one objective sense that matters - reduction of harm. It is pretty well understood that speed differentials between cars on the same road are a significant road hazard, even when in different lanes like fast moving HOVs beside slow-moving regular lanes. So while speeding because others are speeding is unlawful (in most, but not all US states) it is generally the right thing to do.
Re:Recipes aren't necessarily copyrightable (Score:3, Interesting)
You're looking at copyright the wrong way.
Copyright is an exception to people's natural right to copy objects in their possession. For example, if you buy a new chair there is no law that prohibits you from buying a bunch of wood, going out to the 'ole woodshop and making three more chairs exactly like it.
The obvious limiting factor there, though, is that not many people have the skill necessary to duplicate those chairs. Thus the carpenter can earn a living by selling chairs.
Ideas are a little different though. Ideas are trivial to copy - even without computers ideas have always been pretty trivial to copy and distribute. It's as simple as writing them down again. Because of this it is very hard for someone to earn a living on new ideas without something to limit other people's ability to copy.
Thus the Powers That Be came up with copyright. It is a special exemption to the public's natural right to copy. Since new ideas are always built upon older ideas, it's also very important that this exemption be limited. The standard for the last few hundred years up until 60-70 years ago was around 20 years on average. The original term in the US was 28 years.
Why the hell should it be life of the author + 70 years now? What incentive does the author gain to produce new works when most of the supposed payoff comes after he's dead? The fact is, anything past the first 5 years is a marginal payoff at best, so why the obscene extensions?
It's worth noting that all recent extensions have been pushed to protect the works of people who are already dead, and who will see not one bit of benefit from the extensions, nor create any new content because of it.
So how is a dead guy supposed to be making a living off his creations?
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Keeping your speed to the legal limit, while putting you personally at greater risk, encourages others to reduce their speed.
It isn't about your personal risk, its about the risk to all of the other cars around you. One guy hits the slowpoke and the chain reaction can easily take out 10 cars.
The excessive speed itself is dangerous, and matching that speed encourages those around you to do the same.
Not the case. DoT standards for setting speed limits, in a nutshell, are to use the 85th percentile of what unregulated drivers average on the roadway. This process works because people rarely drive faster than is dangerous regardless (and/or in spite) of posted speed limits.
The analogy is appropriate, in spite of whatever justifications you like to make for your illegal speeding habits.
Ah, thanks for that. It is so much easier when the self-righteous dickwads identify themselves by projecting because we can all tell that they are the ones doing the rationalizing rather than arguing in good faith. FYI, I rarely, if ever, speed. I live in a city and don't own a car. When I do rent one on travel I avoid freeways as much as is feasible.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
but fair use does not include a complete copy made for personal use.
It can. Any otherwise infringing use can be a fair use, though no use is necessarily a fair use. Whether any given use is fair or not depends on the overall circumstances. There's a four-part test that the courts commonly employ, and while the amount of the use is a factor, it isn't determinative all by itself.
For example, the Supreme Court felt that videotaping an entire movie from the television, so that it could be watched later -- a complete copy made for personal use, in other words -- could be a fair use, which was why they didn't support the movie industry's attempt to ban the VCR back in the 80's.
Re:The web is public domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, but the copyrighted recipe of the cake is the truth...
At least in some other parts of the world (e.g. Germany), you cannot copyright a recipe. You can have a copyright on a photo that you publish with the recipe, but the recipe itself can be copied and redistributed. The reason is that text without enough level of creativity ("Schaffenshoehe") cannot be copyrighted.