

A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain" - callmeed
http://www.cookssource.com/

======
aasarava
The editor's response reveals a lot about her understanding (or lack thereof)
of the business she's in. Normally I'm willing to overlook small typos in blog
posts -- but when you are an editor, and you are writing an important response
on an important issue, it's not wise to get the punctuation wrong on the _very
first word_. (It should be "it's sad", not "its sad".)

That she continues not to use apostrophes throughout the post and gets other
things wrong ("I never ment to hurt"), pretty much sends the message that "I
don't really know what I'm doing" and "I just don't really care." If, as an
editor, she doesn't understand basic rules of punctuation, then is it any
surprise that she doesn't understand copyright?

If, as she claims, the magazine is going to go out of business, the real
culprit is the editor's lack of knowledge about the business she's in.

After all, we wouldn't feel sorry for a chef who had to close his restaurant
after it was revealed that he was violating health codes. Why should we feel
sorry for an editor who still doesn't understand copyright, even after having
gone through this whole episode?

~~~
grellas
I couldn't agree more that this editor's fate is deserved and that this is an
"apology" only in the traditional meaning of that word (an attempted defense
and not a _mea culpa_ ), and a poor one at that. I also have been critical of
her unbelievably tone-deaf approach to the subject of handling the complaint
of an innocent person whom she had wronged (see
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1870300>).

Yet, at some level, I do feel sorry for this person in a sense that I can best
describe through an anecdote.

I once had to fire one of my employees (an attorney) who had been with me no
more than a few weeks and who produced atrociously bad work when measured by
the standards that apply to legal work in the startup area (which must
technically meet high standards or else). This employee was a very nice person
but, as I saw her work in various contexts, I realized that she was basically
in _way_ over her head. The details are not important, except to note the
following: as I was explaining the reasons for having to fire her, she had
this astonished look in her eyes, as if, all through her schooling and prior
work experiences, no one had ever been straight with her about her
shortcomings. In essence, she truly didn't have what it took _ever_ to be good
in this field (I did not put it to her that bluntly, of course). As I talked
with her and tried to encourage her in any way I could about her future, I was
literally grieved to realize that this young lady had essentially been coddled
all the way through the school system in a way that left her to hit a cold
wall of reality only after having likely wasted all kinds of time and money in
pursuing a career for which she was not at all suited. This was one of the
saddest encounters I have ever had. Though I was the one who had been short-
changed in the relationship, and hurt financially owing to incompetent work, I
could not help but feel profoundly sorry for that young lady.

I would say that this editor too is a sadly misplaced person for her chosen
field and that this whole episode has essentially exposed that fact _in a very
public way_. There is something quite tragic in all this, even as it is hard
to sympathize either with her position taken in this fiasco or with her clumsy
(and unwise) attempts to defend the indefensible. Above all, this must have
been a severe embarrassment and humiliation for this editor, whether or not
deserved, and at a human level I am truly sorry for her.

~~~
semipermeable
People who appear to be coddled through their education may just have taken
the easy way out and cheated:

<http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125329/>

~~~
cheald
I had a reply filled with disbelief about the ability to successfully cheat
through law school, but after reading that article I'm truly blown away.

It's beyond pitiful - in the literal, not pejorative sense - how many people
manage to get through our so-called higher education without so much as the
ability to communicate on a sixth-grade level. I guess all I can do is teach
my kids the value of what it means to love learning, and how to communicate
their thoughts and ideas well. The system obviously hasn't figured out how to
make that happen yet.

------
yalurker
Wow, reading this didn't give me any sympathy for her at all. I'm reminded of
the episode of South Park where Cartman feels bad only about getting punished,
no actual guilt or remorse for his crime, and fails to understand how the
other kids can feel bad in any way other than because of punishment.

She steals someone else's work, gets caught and sends an arrogant, rude email
with absurd claims (web is public domain) and then when she is hit with the
internet backlash, she writes a post that it's not her fault because she was
overworked and throws in an insincere apology where she still clearly doesn't
believe she did anything wrong ("I think I did a nice job for you").

The original article didn't irk me nearly as much as her rebuttal. Quite
frankly, if this really does put them out of business, they deserve it.

~~~
adamesque
If that list of plagiarized articles is accurate, she certainly seemed to have
it coming, but you'll have to forgive me if I can't feel awesome about the
victory of asymmetrical internet mob justice over a small-time regional
magazine.

God forbid they ever smell blood in the water _you're_ swimming in.

~~~
chesser
Actually the so-called "mob justice" was a HUGE FAVOR. I'll explain.

How would you feel if your start-up was ripped off? Would you want HN people
to rally around you, or would that be "mob justice"?

And what if it turned out the same people were also ripping off, say,
Microsoft and Apple and several other large corporations?

If everyone had been so civil and polite, they wouldn't have felt pressured to
shut down.

I don't know about you, but I'll take Facebook comments and phone calls over
getting served with papers from half a dozen massive legal departments _any
day_.

Lawsuits are expensive even when you're innocent.

If the penalties are draconian for not even distributing but just "making
available" mp3s with NO commercial intentions whatsoever, what do you think
the penalties are going to look like for massive distribution of hundreds or
thousands of discrete willful infringements _for profit_?

This so-called mob justice is immeasurably nicer than what the actual legal
system would have done to them.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
MP3s are different, they're covered by a specific law (the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act) created at the behest of the record companies and it wouldn't
apply here.

While there may be some elements of criminal law that might apply, in all
probability this would have been a straight civil case rather than a criminal
matter with the writers claiming damages for the work published without
permission. She could have accepted liability (or even not done so), paid them
(which would likely have been relatively limited given the pieces she's used -
it's not like she's been grabbing major scoops from the NYT) and moved on.

The chances are that the writers would be no more interested in racking up
legal bills that she would so costs there would have been minimal. Basically
she gives each one of them a few hundred dollars, they give her a letter
saying it's OK to run the piece.

She was in the wrong but the punishment (essentially being forced out of
business) doesn't really fit the "crime" and the legal remedies would have
been far easier on her than the mob was.

~~~
chesser
Copyright law was _originally_ instituted to cover written works. There is a
ton of case law.

It would not have been kind to them.

Nobody "forced" them out of business, they voluntarily quit when they realized
their sham was exposed.

In aggregate, their behavior easily qualified as multiple felonies; and
damages alone would most likely have been ruinous.

I know _I_ would not want to roll those dice.

So I think you're mistaken about essentially everything you said above.

------
cs_1
It's really amazing how utterly contemptible this editor's responses have
been.

Rip off everyone else knowingly for months or years, then claim innocence and
that it was an isolated mistake. Blame everyone else for your own actions and
pretend that your apology was fake because people were mean FIRST, when
actually the fake apology came first and THAT is what made them mad. Be
offered a chance to make it up, denigrate the offer, then cry and lie later
about not getting a chance.

This newest statement is so rife with errors, I gotta say:

 _"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"_

I also like how she makes it out to be about one blogger, when it turns out
Cooks Source stole articles and photos from sites for The Food Network, Oprah,
and Martha Stewart. They would have been sued out of existence anyway.

 _"If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the
harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda."_

Pretending it's about one blogger, when in reality it was the collective
actions of thousands of people that the editor pissed off. And pretending that
her apology was affected by events that hadn't even happened yet!

 _"I really wish she had given me a chance to respond to her before blasting
me. She really never gave me a chance."_

So ripping people off is okay, but pointing this out is "blasting someone".
And of course she got the chance to respond, her fake apology was included in
the initial post and was what pissed everyone off. "The Web Is Public Domain",
the headline that GOT all the attention, is _from her response_ , the one she
claims she never got the chance to make.

 _"But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I
was short one article..."_

Anyone can make a mistake, but the research shows they ripped off most if not
all of their material, on a constant basis.

 _"Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it."_

Except that any editor knows that EVERYTHING is automatically copyrighted. Oh
yeah, and also they ripped off plenty of stuff from big commercial sites which
was obviously copyrighted and said so explicitly.

And then she was informed directly by the author that it was copyrighted, so
that there was no confusion, to which the editor responded: _"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!"_ [...]
_"We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!_ "

And then...

 _"To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a
chance."_

She DID give the editor a chance. She just asked for a donation to the
Columbia School of Journalism amounting to 10 cents per word.

So at the end, when you're finally about to face the music for a MULTITUDE of
misdeeds, try to distract and cover for them all by copping to a single
incident with a single person and then claim it was an accident.

Nothing is ever your fault!

It's difficult to comprehend this level of depravity.

~~~
andolanra
If I recall correctly—I could be mistaken—some of the parts of the article
that were supposedly "...in need of editing..." were the verbatim historical
recipes, which used the archaic spellings found in the original documents
(e.g. "To make pies of grene apples.") Which would make it even more
entertaining, in a schadenfreude-filled sort of way.

~~~
cs_1
That's correct! A real editor with 3 decades' experience would have understood
things like _English has changed over time_.

------
AgentConundrum
_Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it._

Copyright is the default, not the exception. Unless there's an explicit
declaration that copying is OK (e.g. Creative Commons, other _licenses_ ), you
should assume you can't copy it.

She gets no sympathy from me. In fact, her comments just push me further from
her side.

~~~
3pt14159
That is true for the US, not necessarily the rest of the world. Not
disagreeing with your point, just want to help out anyone that would take away
what you said as hard fact.

~~~
AgentConundrum
The US, where Cooks Source seems to be based, is a signatory of the Berne
Convention[1]. From Wikipedia:

 _The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of
works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne
Union) in the same way as it recognises the copyright of its own nationals.
For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed
in France, regardless of where it was originally created._

Additionally, The Berne Convention makes copyright _automatic_ in countries
which observe it. This image, also from Wikipedia, shows the Berne signatories
in blue:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berne_Convention_signatori...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berne_Convention_signatories.svg)

While my post is "not necessarily [true] for the rest of the world," it _is_
true for an awful large portion of it.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works)

------
mitcheme
No sympathy from me. Anyone who works as a magazine editor should realize that
these things are copyrighted (NOT "copy written"; seriously, editor?) by
default. The FIRST thing you do is check the article's license, and if there
isn't one, get permission (NOT "contact the author" to let them know you've
decided to use it; she never had that right). Monica had every right to be
rude -- Cooks Source had unapologetically violated her rights. This article
just makes them seem whiny and reluctant to take responsibility for their own
choices. I bet if they had owned up right away and published a real apology
plus a mention of paying the author for her work, things would have gone much
more smoothly.

------
andfarm
> But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I
> was short one article... Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books
> sent to me and typing it, I got lazy and went to the www and "found"
> something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some
> of it. I did keep the author's name on it rather than outright "stealing"
> it, and it was my intention to contact the author, but I simply forgot,
> between proofreading, deliveries, exhaustion.

And I suppose the author was also "bleary-eyed" when she plagiarized all the
other articles which were identified as having been taken from other cooking
magazines?

[http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic...](http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238)

~~~
istari
All of those magazines should pay her for cleaning up their sloppy work.

------
sammcd
My favorite part:

"Facebook has not responded at all; not taken these advertisers name off this
bogus site -- or remove the site completely -- and takes no responsibility
that someone unnamed can just create a page that can suggest that people"

The entire internet is public domain, except for her site, I guess.

------
nl
Wow... that's one of the least gracious apologies I've ever seen. 1150 words,
of which around 100 is the apology (including the choice phrase "I think I did
a nice job for you") and the rest of it is excuses and blame shifting.

------
zdw
"Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it,
I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something."

In school, that's called plagiarism, and you get thrown out for it...

Why should it be so different in the real world?

~~~
pyre
Who says she hasn't already been 'thrown out' of the real world? Her ideas
certainly don't match up with reality.

------
ghurlman
I've learned two things in life about people like this editor:

1\. I will never understand how their brain puts them in the right for every
situation they've ever been in

2\. No amount of arguing or facts will get in the way of #1

~~~
tjmc
Indeed, and now that she's got some free time perhaps she can help Conrad
Black with his memoirs.

------
blhack
Huh. This all feels a lot like people who ask designers or programmers to work
for free in exchange for "thing that look good in your portfolio".

~~~
cs_1
Minus the word "ask".

~~~
younata
don't you mean "substitute 'demand' for 'ask'?

------
ndl
"If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the
harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda."

This is neither an a letter of apology nor an admission of wrongdoing, it's a
statement of blame.

"Thank you to all our readers, thanks to all our advertisers and writers...
and to everyone who has been supportive and who has been a part of Cooks
Source. To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a
chance."

The "one writer in particular" directly after referring to the magazine's
writers almost implies that she thinks Monica is one of their writers. I
wonder if she thinks that the entire Internet are her writers?

I don't think that violating copyright is incurring her the wrath of the
Internet. Plenty of people distribute content that isn't theirs, and usually
they get sympathy when the big bad RIAA comes in. It's the fact that every
time she gets called out on a mistake, she insults the victim. You can get
away with being wrong or with being nasty, but not both.

------
nathanielksmith
I am curious to hear the opinions of some of the people in this comment thread
regarding the downloading of copyrighted music, torrenting copyrighted films,
downloading copyrighted books, or otherwise illegally using copyrighted
content.

I'm not defending this woman as she did do something wrong. However, I think
it's distressing that people are celebrating her "defeat," especially as (I
would guess) most of her critics are avid supporters of pirated content. Isn't
there some statistic about how every American violates some copyright law just
about every day?

Cooks Source was a small, free, regional publication--the kind you ignore at
the dentist's. This doesn't excuse Cooks Source and doesn't mean that Monica
shouldn't have taken issue like she did. But in the end, I just don't see a
david vs. goliath story: I just see a bunch of people ganging up on one
person.

~~~
skore
No. There is a difference between pirating for personal use or even sharing
with others and re-publishing content for profit.

Copyright survives precisely because it is not enforced 100% - if it was
followed by the letter, everybody would very soon see that it's not a good
idea, crippling culture and turning the participation in public discourse on
its head. This is also why there are rules like Fair Use - to acknowledge that
there is an area where copyright is just not producing any net worth for
society.

That said, you cannot then go on and follow that because it is rarely followed
to the letter by regular people, the whole system isn't working. I see the
recent "liberal" approach to cultural content as a plain opposite and equal
reaction to the decades of capitalizing on culture. The media industry had
their way for a good while and very nearly fully commercialized it (which is
why, even today, you see people arguing that artists wouldn't produce art if
they weren't paid for it) and now that the sole purpose of their existence
(distribution of cultural content) is done better, cheaper and more efficient
by regular people do they circle around themselves eating their own young.

I see the Cooks Source incident as a very weird example of a regular person
behaving as entitled as the big media corporations do (or compare, for
instance, the various Timbaland "situations" we've had over the years) - she
is not in a position where she can act like that, but others clearly CAN.

These are all symptoms of a change that is clearly happening, but the outcome
will not consist of those symptoms. Or at least I hope that it does not.

------
Dramatize
Is it just me or should she have started this with the "So let me say this
now: Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you." line?

It read like:

-excuse -excuse -excuse -excuse -excuse -sorry -excuse -excuse -excuse

------
callmeed
See:

<http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html>

and <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1868736>

~~~
studer
Also: <http://illadore.livejournal.com/32647.html>

------
bigiain
(Working on the assumption that the author is being sincere here) This
displays such a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright that it initially
shocked me. But in retrospect I suspect this attitude is probably very widely
shared, particularly amongst younger people who've grown up with Napster and
filesharing and bit torrent. While most of us don't republish other people's
copyrighted work, I'm sure very few of us haven't got _some_ "illegally
copied" copyrighted material somewhere on a hard drive. And from one point of
view, what she did is not really any different to all those YouTube videos
with unauthorized music tracks backing them - I'm not saying that's a
_correct_ interpretation, but I can easily understand why some people - like
she's doing here - think they've got some right to do that.

I see this as a fundamental, and probably generational change in the way the
public thinks about copyright, and it'll be fascinating to see how the legal
system "catches up" with public expectations. It could well be that when
people like her get into positions where they're making the decisions about
whether to extend Disney's Mickey Mouse copyrights even further, they'll be
sitting there saying "WTF?", and perhaps_ bringing some sanity back to
copyright laws.

I hope some artists and creators survive long enough to see that day...

~~~
bigiain
Actually, pondering this a bit further, I wonder if my idea of this being a
"generational change" is wrong. I wonder how people in the 1930s or 1940s
views their obligations to artists/composers/filmmakers/writers and those
people's rights to control their published work?

It may be the "Disney era copyrights" are just a temporary anomaly in "the way
the world works", in a similar way to the ~30 year "profitable album era" was
for the music industry...

~~~
skore
There sure is a disconnect going on between how big corporations utilize
copyright to their advantage and how regular folks deal with it, rather
hamfistedly, as in this case.

I disagree with your earlier statement that this might be a new way in which
the public "thinks about copyright", it is rather the new way in which it is
/misunderstood/. So I'd say we shouldn't confuse the mounting ignorance in the
general populace (which is, mostly, attributable to just the sheer amount of
stuff that is out there - logic usually fails when something gets too big to
follow) with an actual shift in consciousness. There is a need to rethink a
lot of this, but that shouldn't be about "how do we break the old thing", but
about "how do we create a new thing" - and that is where efforts like CC come
into play.

So I don't really disagree that this is a widespread phenomenon, I'm just
saying that it will not be where the change comes from in the future. That is,
of course, unless reality is particularly cruel to us.

------
alanh
The first sentence is only three words long and yet contains the elementary-
school-level mistake of using “its” when ”it’s” was intended.

In fact, this article is _full_ of basic mistakes even spellcheck can correct.

She’s an _editor._

~~~
tjmc
Former editor, thankfully.

------
marklabedz
Put down the shovel.

------
senorprogrammer
She's effectively written a long-winded excuse in the guide of an apology
while making thinly-veiled attempts to blame the original author for her
ensuing misfortune. At the same time she deftly manages to not mention the
numerous other counts of plagiarism that were discovered.

I'm sure she feels extremely sorry for herself right now but for all intents
and purposes she is simply a thief.

~~~
pyre
She's not a thief, but she is a fraud. (i.e. copyright violate != theft)

~~~
senorprogrammer
Fair point. Agreed.

------
subpixel
Reading this letter, all I can think is: this woman is wasting her silly
recrimination and entertaining incompetence on some sort of regional print
magazine, when she's so obviously tailor made for reality TV!

------
ck2
_Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it,
I got lazy and went to the www and "found" something._

Well there you go, and they didn't need to write the 2000 other words on that
page which were all excuses - no one forced them to be a publisher.

They copy and pasted and planned on begging for forgiveness later being easier
than asking permission. Or maybe not even being noticed at all.

Google even has a public-domain/creative-commons search option which they
didn't even bother to use.

~~~
skore
An interesting point - after all, if this was really about creating a good
magazine and not having enough time to write the content, going with public or
CC licensed content would actually make a lot of sense. So the way she
conducted her business was actually not THAT far off - she just happened to be
completely ignorant about there being a way that she could avoid the obvious
legal issues.

~~~
owkaye
"she just happened to be completely ignorant about there being a way that she
could avoid the obvious legal issues"

I think she has known all along that she's been running her business illegally
by stealing other people's work without permission, and because she was never
confronted about it until now she became emboldened to continue to expand her
illegal practices.

I think she's acting ignorant, and it does not feel genuine to me at all.
Anyone who claims to have been employed as an editor for 3 decades certainly
knows what is legal and illegal. She just figured that she could get away with
it -- and when confronted she decided that "the best defense is a strong
offense" so she attacked the author verbally and tried to belittle her --
thinking perhaps that the author would simply back away and 'disappear' rather
than assert her rights.

------
stcredzero
From Techcrunch:

 _If we let anonymous mobs have this much power, the world — the real, flesh-
and-blood human one, not the virtual one of Tweets, blog posts, comments and
LiveJournal feeds– is going to get worse, not better._

[http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/16/congrats-self-righteous-
int...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/16/congrats-self-righteous-internet-mob-
you-killed-a-magazine/)

Already happened!

~~~
zbyszek
I imagine the Iranian government might express similar sentiments about
anonymous internet mobs. The power they wield might be used to all sorts of
ends, some of which we might admire, and some which we might find distasteful.
Would a world where we forbid the anonymous mobs from having that much power
be so much better?

~~~
stcredzero
I've never advocated banning anonymous mobs. However, I like pointing out when
they do bad things. I find too many people seem to worship the activity of
internet mobs as though they're inherently good, when they're no more
inherently anything than any other sort of mob.

------
SimonPStevens
While I have no sympathy for this woman, something in her story does concern
me.

    
    
      "we have had so much hate email (over 400 pieces) , phone calls and regular mail."
    

She violated some copyright. That is an issue between her and the copyright
holder. I feel slightly ashamed to be part of a community (Not HN
specifically, but the more global software community) that responds with hate
mail and abuse.

~~~
skore
As soon as something is "made into a facebook group", all bets are off, I
suppose. This kind of abuse is rarely (if ever) justified, so I agree with
you, but I would also add that it's her making this statement and I have kind
of stopped trusting that voice.

------
jhamburger
I might have some sympathy if I bought her premise that this ugliness could
have been avoided if Monica simply waited for her to deal with the issue
quietly. Monica got a written and printed apology, a donation to columbia, and
a virtual assurance that this publication will no longer violate copyright.
There's no way she would have received that level of satisfaction without
dealing with it the way she did.

------
erikano
_[...] a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 16 Nov 2010 20:34:40 GMT._ (in
the event that the editor should decide to take down or considerably alter the
statement) [1].

[1]:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VlsfWx1...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VlsfWx1uFBQJ:www.cookssource.com/+site:cookssource.com&strip=1)

------
markbao
I'm sad that this meant the end of someone doing what they love to do and
something they put in work for, for years.

But my sympathy ends there.

------
danilocampos
My favorite part:

"I didnt notice it was copy written"

Assuming she means "copyrighted," damn. This individual is shockingly ignorant
about the business of writing. The author of any work automatically receives
copyright to that work (unless it's a work for hire, etc). It's that simple.

I want to believe no one can be that obtuse, and this line is just one more of
the weak post-rationalizations she's offering for obvious bad behavior.

------
iuguy
Hopefully she'll have learned a bit about how to interact with people on the
Internet by the time she starts her next venture (if this one is going down
the tubes as a result of her previous actions).

Sadly that response tells me she's learned nothing from all of this and can't
see beyond her own bloodied nose.

~~~
Devilboy
It is indeed going down the 'tubes'
[http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/16/cooks-source-calls-
it-q...](http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/16/cooks-source-calls-it-quits)

~~~
pyre
There's a part where some of the quotes from the apology letter are implied to
have been given to the Gazette in a phone interview. (not necessarily
intentional)

------
mynameishere
Not to defend her, but when your typical blog author finds out that something
he wrote got published, his response is one of pleasure. This "editor" is
wrong on all counts, but from her perspective, the response of the blogger is
highly unusual.

------
trustfundbaby
In a way, I see her twisted logic and I empathize.

I'm not a fan of the mob mentality that drove the harassment she received. Its
amazing what people will do once they're convinced they're _right_

------
latch
I'm going to have to go against the prevailing view and say that you guys are
being way too harsh. She messed up. She apologized.

Maybe it wan't sincere enough for you, fine. But in any case, what she did is
less horrible than what has since been done to her. I have no doubt that
"harass" is the right word, no doubt that her advertisers are being contacted,
her voice mail stuffed, and her mailbox filled.

Based on what? How's this different than suing companies for silly shit? Its
only different because you're the judge. An armchair judge. This should have
been handled privately. Like adults. This is drama..a soap opera...stuff of
tabloid.

Someone has wronged me and I'll unleash the internet on them.

Put your pitchforks away.

~~~
krschultz
Copyright is not "silly shit" to a bunch of programmers (especially when many
of them work on open source). Programmers make things that are copyrighted. A
story about an individual having their work stolen by another invokes the same
response among programmers as a story about a violent robbery would invoke in
a storm owner. It gets personal. Right or wrong that explains the emotion
behind the mob.

(Why this doesn't extend to violating copyright on music, movies, and games is
beyond me.)

------
delackner
Woe to the society that believes being punished is the only wrong, and that
guilt is something to be accused of only, not something to be ashamed of.

------
16s
This is beyond ridiculous... the epitome of stupidity.

------
xentronium
WTH, you screwed up -- get over it. Nobody in the entire internet needed that
lame excuse letter.

------
karlzt
instead of cookssource.com I get www.intuit.com.

~~~
erikano
See googles cached version (I've posted it ITT).

