Cook’s Source magazine has been the topic of conversation in recent days for grabbing a copyrighted article written by Monica Gaudio off the Internet and publishing it without permission or compensation. When Ms. Gaudio complained, she was told that she should be thankful Cook’s Source “improved” the article by editing it and then publishing it with attribution. Cook’s Source‘s editor wrote:
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!
Ignoring the grammatical errors in the Cook’s Source response, which, considering he thinks Ms. Gaudio should pay him for his editing, adds insult to injury, the real question is whether Cook’s Source is simply reflecting a viewpoint that is becoming more commonplace among Internet users.
There has been a lot of uproar in recent years regarding software, book, music, and video “piracy.” On one side of the argument are the copyright holders whose works are “pirated,” and on the other are the consumers who do the “pirating.” (We need to be careful about using the term pirating or piracy because its use implies that the act is wrong. I want to use it here in a more neutral sense, the sense that it is simply a descriptor of action not a conclusion as to whether the action is right or wrong.)
Are the Internet and the posting of material online changing expectations? From what I observe of “consumer” attitudes, the answer is yes. Increasingly, Internet users expect these things to be free and freely usable — a phenomenon that seems to have an inverse relationship to the user’s age; increasingly, copyright has only meaning between companies and not between copyright holders and consumers.
The situation is exacerbated, at least in ebook world, by agency pricing and DRM. I suspect that there is less piracy of books that fall closer to the low-price-DRM-free side of the curve than of books that fall closer to the high-price-DRM side of the curve. The situation is also exacerbated by such things as YouTube and Wikipedia, both of which encourage sharing and free use. Consumers become accustomed to free use of intellectual property. There is also the problem of a decline in understanding among the general population of what constitutes intellectual property that is protectable and why it should be protectable. Is there any reason other than corporate greed to keep extending the protection life of Mickey Mouse?
Ask a teenager whether the sweater in Macy’s is free (or should be free) and the response usually is no, it costs money. Ask the same teenager whether the text on the Internet is free (or should be free) and the answer turns 180 degrees. The major difference, at least for books and text, is that to the upcoming generations words shouldn’t cost because no one owns them. When the discussion turns to copyright, they are either befuddled or they are familiar enough with copyright to say that it was OK to protect words when the protection was limited but with today’s extensions that make the protection nearly permanent, copyright has no meaning. Besides fair use is in such a state of disarray that few people have any understanding of where it ends. (I know of several publishers who unilaterally declare that x number of words constitutes fair use, with x changing depending on the book and the publisher. Of course, x applies to words quoted from books from other publishers, not from their books.)
If you think about it, the protection extensions in copyright law are contrary to capitalism and free market thinking. Society is willing to tolerate a limited extension, but not an extension that makes it more or less a permanent monopoly. Although Monica Gaudio is right that her work is protected by copyright, Cook’s Source is simply reflecting the capitalist-free market position that when copyright exists into absurdity (i.e., forever), it should be viewed as not existing at all.
This dilemma will never be resolved absent a recognition by the producers of copyrighted material that they are encouraging consumers to pirate their work by their demand for never-ending and increasingly restrictive protection. Consumers look at the ever-narrowing of their rights and take the only tack they can — they ignore the restrictions. The Republicans say that the midterm elections demonstrate that the Democrats don’t hear the people, perhaps the Republicans should listen to the voice of the consumer and reverse course on the DMCA and copyright laws — instead of pushing for increased protections and more onerous burdens on the consumer, they should push for a return to the original limits and a more relaxed view of fair use and what consumers can do with material they have legitimately bought.
Via Rich Adin’s An American Editor blog
I found this an excellent article. It really reflects most of the issues that feed into this growing Copyright topic.
For myself I feel that the democratisation of the web, wonderful and magical as it is, inevitably means that millions of ordinary people who are not familiar with copyright and it’s principles are now involved actively in the web process. Through blogs, commenting and perhaps their own web sites. While most are, as Rich correctly says, familiar with the copyright issue as it relates to Music and Film and now eBooks, their attitude is influenced enormously by the uber aggressiveness and greed of those industries in trying to extend their control into people’s homes and private lives.
There is a real need to educate and spread the knowledge of copyright as it relates to journalistic, article and blog content online p not only for legal reasons but for reasons of common courtesy and respect.
I have always opposed the extreme and outrageous behaviour of the Music and Film industries in their protection of copyright and I oppose the equally outrageous time scale length of copyright laws. However I am absolutely astonished and appalled by the actions and response of “Cooks Source” magazine. Their behaviour has been totally unacceptable both legally and morally and their response to the perfectly valid objection by Ms Guido was mind bogglingly ignorant and arrogant.
Rich asks if this is “simply reflecting a viewpoint that is becoming more commonplace among Internet users”.
My response is to say that I don’t feel it is a ‘viewpoint’, rather it is simply a lack of knowledge that may have become commonplace. However I am certain that the logic and correctness of the rules of copyright in this area, once explained, would be almost unanimously accepted among internet users.
Quoting from someone’s writing is fine, but wholesale copying of someone else’s writings without permission is clearly wrong and against anyone’s common understanding of right and wrong.
I find the statement by The Cooks Source on their website quite at the same time self serving, comical and hypocritical. It tries to deflect from their outrageous behaviour by attacking all and sundry as well as claiming to be concerned about the damage the fallout is doing to their customers.
They claim in that statement that:
“Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie — Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff.”
Yet this appears directly contradictory to the email correspondence sent to Ms Guido by the Cooks Source editor, Judith Griggs, which was not apologetic and was utterly brazen and arrogant in it’s self justification.
Griggs wrote to Guido:
“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! ”
Gobsmacking and astounding …
I agree with the commenter above, that it’s ignorance rather than a principled stand, more often than not. I can’t tell you how many people have argued to me that all content that is available for free on the web is up for grabs, and can be used in any way they choose. The educated few will add that attribution must be made.
The difference between plagiarism and copyright utterly escapes almost all of our public. That’s not surprising, since very few of them had the ability to violate copyright easily until very recently. But it is something that we all need to address.
We need to educate people that there is an issue of control above the issue of attribution, regardless of whether you think copyright should be shorter or not.
Without being flippant, if sweaters could be digitised and distributed across the internet, people would expect them to be free as well. Copyright is (rightly) a debated, protected and contested issue but I think ‘free’ is more a question of scarcity and distribution than of legislation or education.
I find people are on the whole very responsible and keen to pay a fair price for what they want. Not at all obsessed with expecting things to be free. Awareness of copyright is poor, but once made aware I believe the vast majority have respect for that.
@Jason,
Ah, but that’s the problem: the cost of reproducing the material isn’t the only cost. For bestselling books or music, the fixed costs of production (for books, these include structural editing, line editing, copyediting, proofing, text design, cover art and design, illustrations, and file prep) are small, on the order of maybe 75 cents per copy. But for the vast majority of books, they’re a far larger part of the picture. And then there are royalties.
But, you may argue, what about the work being given away on the Internet? Isn’t the rights-owner already declaring it to be free? No, not usually. Usually, they’re giving away a free sample, in order to do something else. It may be that they’re trying to get you to see the whole site, in order to make a point, or present an artistic vision, or sell you something. It may be behind a registration wall, or that they’re trying to build a relationship with you. But if you put that work in some other context, whoops, there goes whatever else they’ve tried to accomplish with it, and all of their reason for donating it to the world.
And all of that utterly ignores the question of control. If, for example, I were Jewish, I really wouldn’t want my work used by neo-Nazi propagandists, for example. And I should have the write to deny them, or anyone else, that use. I made it, and I should be able to give, sell, or trade it.
And if I ever cannot control the use of my work, then I can pretty much guarantee the consequence. The majority of those who make a living from creativity, will no longer. The majority of those who create for reasons other than vanity/the desire for fame will stop. And the quality of fiction, music, online art, reporting and many other things that we have come to rely upon in this golden age of media will drop like a stone.
Educating the reader about copyright is our last, best hope of saving commercial creative efforts.
It’s not just to the creator’s advantage, but the reader/viewer/listeners advantage that the creator be paid. They need to learn that.
If you stop buying an author’s books and steal them instead, you give the author one more reason to stop writing. If enough people steal the book, the writer will have far fewer reasons to keep writing, and soon you will have one less favorite author to read.
Those who think professional -calibre authors create just for the fun of it have never spent several months of twelve-hour days sitting at a computer to finish a book on deadline.
@Marion,
I absolutely agree. People should be paid for what they do. As most of these comments have correctly stated, without a thriving creative economy, we get New Grub Street. Unfortunately, I have a regular argument with people who complain about paying £5 for a book when it “costs almost nothing to print”. Whether we like it or not, this is the economic mindset people apply to digital content. And once you take away the scarcity of a product through ubiquitous access and instant reproduction, it is devalued still further. Copyright is a fine thing and I’m all for protecting its legislative status, but I don’t think it solves the problem of ‘free’.