Cookssource and Internet Publishing November 17, 2010 8:18 AM Subscribe
Let's argue about Cooks Source again. She posted a self-righteous not-quite-apology today. I know a lot of people find this tiresome, but I actually think this is a fascinating case in the fascinating discussion of the future of copyright and publishing.
In the original discussion the conversation about her decision to publish (with attribution) an authors work (which was published elsewhere on the internet) without notifying her, obtaining permission, or compensating her derailed into a comparison to file-sharing. I personally think there's quite a few differences, however there's still a lot of parallels to publishing that free-culture advocates are completely fine with.
My question is: how is this different from nearly every ad-supported MP3 Blog out there?
In the original discussion the conversation about her decision to publish (with attribution) an authors work (which was published elsewhere on the internet) without notifying her, obtaining permission, or compensating her derailed into a comparison to file-sharing. I personally think there's quite a few differences, however there's still a lot of parallels to publishing that free-culture advocates are completely fine with.
My question is: how is this different from nearly every ad-supported MP3 Blog out there?
Let's argue about Cooks Source again.
I'm pretty sure this is not what MetaTalk is for.
I actually think this is a fascinating case in the fascinating discussion of the future of copyright and publishing.
Really? It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright infringement without much grey area. I don't really see what's unique or fascinating about this, aside from the fact that the Cooks Source person is clearly kind of insane. Hilariously insane, but still. This should probably go in the original thread.
posted by dhammond at 8:26 AM on November 17, 2010 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure this is not what MetaTalk is for.
I actually think this is a fascinating case in the fascinating discussion of the future of copyright and publishing.
Really? It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright infringement without much grey area. I don't really see what's unique or fascinating about this, aside from the fact that the Cooks Source person is clearly kind of insane. Hilariously insane, but still. This should probably go in the original thread.
posted by dhammond at 8:26 AM on November 17, 2010 [6 favorites]
In the original discussion, it was suggested that discussion of the parallels between Cookssource and other copyright infringement was a digression and should be diverted to MetaTalk. I'm still pretty new here, and I took the suggestion at face value.
posted by keratacon at 8:30 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by keratacon at 8:30 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]
The original thread is still open. People can and should go there if they want to continue the discussion. The past two posts we've seen on the subject just looked like invitations to a "fuck her!" pile-on. If people want to continue to talk about this, the thread is still open.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:32 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:32 AM on November 17, 2010
I'm pretty sure the suggestion to take it to metatalk was to justify why the derail should or shouldn't take place in the original thread, not as a place for the derail to happen.
posted by crunchland at 8:32 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by crunchland at 8:32 AM on November 17, 2010
Your name wasn't on the beer in the fridge, man.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:35 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by cjorgensen at 8:35 AM on November 17, 2010
I'm pretty sure the suggestion to take it to metatalk
Whoops, my mistake. Sorry about that. We've been seeing a lot of "let's talk about this new fucked up thing in the Cooks Source" timeline and I thought that was what I was seeing. My apologies. Carry on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:36 AM on November 17, 2010
Whoops, my mistake. Sorry about that. We've been seeing a lot of "let's talk about this new fucked up thing in the Cooks Source" timeline and I thought that was what I was seeing. My apologies. Carry on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:36 AM on November 17, 2010
To paraphrase a quote from a mod: "Metafilter is about links, not discussion".
posted by blue_beetle at 8:37 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by blue_beetle at 8:37 AM on November 17, 2010
FUCK YOU COOK SOURCE. AND FUCK THE LE CREUSET YOU RODE IN ON.
©2010 Threeway Handshake, all rights reserved. Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this comment, without the express written consent of Threeway Handshake, is prohibited.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:37 AM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
©2010 Threeway Handshake, all rights reserved. Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this comment, without the express written consent of Threeway Handshake, is prohibited.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:37 AM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
GRAR Sandwiches!
1) Slice the tender meat of a GRAR.
2) Season with GRAR.
3) Embreadify the GRAR.
4) GRAR!
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2010 [6 favorites]
1) Slice the tender meat of a GRAR.
2) Season with GRAR.
3) Embreadify the GRAR.
4) GRAR!
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2010 [6 favorites]
.mp3 blogs mostly aren't "legal" i.e "non-infringing" either. Lots of people would pile just as hard on them.
But if you're looking for differences:
"Ad-supported" .mp3 blogs often have the revenue simply paying for the site expenses with little left over, so rightly or wrongly, there's less of a perception that they are "for profit" than a print magazine.
And the critical piece: Most .mp3 blogs, if called out on it, wouldn't respond snippily about it. Poor Griggs could have avoided most of this if she hadn't sent that clueless answer back.
posted by tyllwin at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2010
But if you're looking for differences:
"Ad-supported" .mp3 blogs often have the revenue simply paying for the site expenses with little left over, so rightly or wrongly, there's less of a perception that they are "for profit" than a print magazine.
And the critical piece: Most .mp3 blogs, if called out on it, wouldn't respond snippily about it. Poor Griggs could have avoided most of this if she hadn't sent that clueless answer back.
posted by tyllwin at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2010
WE ALREADY HAD THIS META AND IT WAS STUPID
posted by klangklangston at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, as someone who posts mp3s occasionally on my blog, all anyone has to do is tell me and I take them down (this has never happened because no one reads my blog). I try to use streaming stuff when I can find it, just because then I don't have to worry about hosting and I think it's more convenient for people anyway.
But you might as well say ISN'T THIS THE SAME AS YOUTUBE?!?
posted by klangklangston at 8:41 AM on November 17, 2010
But you might as well say ISN'T THIS THE SAME AS YOUTUBE?!?
posted by klangklangston at 8:41 AM on November 17, 2010
WE ALREADY HAD THIS META AND IT WAS STUPID
Oh yeah, we sure did! And that one is still open too! Closey-thready-time now?
posted by Gator at 8:43 AM on November 17, 2010
Oh yeah, we sure did! And that one is still open too! Closey-thready-time now?
posted by Gator at 8:43 AM on November 17, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Gator at 8:20 AM on November 17, 2010