17 Comments

    1. I’m not even entirely convinced that new one is real. Trolls are confusing sometimes, but Judith Griggs has shown herself to be remarkably stupid about this whole thing, so it’s anybody’s guess.

    1. The notable differences:
      1. This is a company that ripped off an individual. Maybe this doesn’t excuse it, but I think its just a wee bit more ok to rip off Giant Music Corporation than it is to rip off Individual With a Blog.
      2. The individual asked for a donation and apology and was given an asshole reply. She didn’t go straight to “sue for 400x the market value of the product”
      3. The internets…she is a fiery mistress.

  1. Another important difference is that the stolen work was being used for clearly commercial purposes, which is very different than just having something new to load into your MP3 player. If I copied and printed her cookery article so I could try the recipe at home, that’s a technical violation of copyright – but even if I was an asshole about it, I don’t think the whole internet comes down on my head.

  2. Ya know, even though I understand this whole kerfuffle—she is an idiot and that is clear infringement—I find it kind of ironic that you (and a gazillion other bloggers, c.f. J-Walk et al) make hay off this when indeed ~90% of the text of your blog is cut/paste from other sources. Sure, fair use and all, and you link, great, but there is an element of hypocrisy here. We live in a cut/paste/blockquote world and she just took it to the extreme. Despite this being a readable blog with lots of text you barely write anything at all here, Chris. How many times have you cut/pasted most of what you are linking to?

    1. The question/issue has nothing to do with cut/paste blogging and sourcing. I’m sure that the blogger would happily have shared her recipe with the magazine (perhaps even freely) had there been a request. To blatantly rip off a piece of work without request and without sourcing it is plagiarism. The insult part comes with the nasty email and the insinuation that plagiarism is not only ethically acceptable, but that the original author of the work ought to be somehow grateful that someone stole from her.

      1. Right. The outrage is generated from the attitude of the editor, not from the plagiarism itself.

        Looking at the responses, plagiarism always seems to supersede as the reason for the outrage, as ostensible as it may be.

        @ d–As far as the source goes, Monica was credited as the writer (though it was indeed edited without her permission–which would royally piss me off!)

        So, the story was cut and pasted (then edited), and credited–by a for-profit outfit. Now, cynical-c does not have a 501c3 as far as I know, and does get revenue from ads…

        And, though I agree that what Griggs did is wrong, and that she is an arrogant sack of shit, I have to agree with croz for the most part. Just because I see more similarities than differences.

        Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the Piratebay.

  3. lucy, did you read what I wrote?

    My point here is that Chris here pretty much plagiarizes the web. I think that how you present the majority of the text on a blog that you use for income (there are ads here) has a lot to do with wether you should he pasing judgment on anything to do with original content.

    There is NO ORIGINAL CONTENT ON THIS BLOG.

    THERE ARE ADVERTISEMENTS ON THIS BLOG.

    THIS BLOG WRITES ABOUT 12 ORIGINAL WORDS FOR EVERY 1000 IT BLOCKQUOTES.

    That, folks, is pretty shady

    I have said my piece.

  4. oh, gimme a break. View this blog as a portal to information.
    Chris doesn’t claim ownership of any of the links…hence the “blockquotes” and links.

  5. If Chris were doing the same thing, he would not just be quoting from (and linking to) other sites. He’d be lifting entire source code, changing some spelling here and there in the articles, and reprinting the website as if it originated here. For profit. Then, when the inevitable “hey, what’s up with that?” letters came, he would be indignant about it, argue (wrongly) that nothing on the internet needs to be attributed and the authors and original content providers should be grateful he at least bothered to keep their names on their work.

Comments are closed.