Recap: a couple of weeks back, Cooks Source was caught red-handed, having pinched an article from the internet. When the author complained, the editor argued that online content was “public domain” and ‘joked’ that since the publication had edited the content, the author should compensate the publication.

Today, bastion of perfect journalism TechCrunch says “Congrats, Self-Righteous Internet Mob. You Killed a Magazine“. The reason? Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs has now posted a sob-story statement, arguing that the event will “end us”.

I agree that the self-righteous mob aspect of the internet is one of its worst qualities, and I certainly don’t envy anyone caught on the wrong side of it. But what’s most amazing here is that Griggs still doesn’t seem to get why everyone got so annoyed, and the new statement, while making apologies, seems to simultaneously fan the fire.

The complicating issue was that one of the businesses we worked with had closed without notice, just a sign on the door—leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida—out of work. I do not offer this as an excuse, but that, when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.

I’m not sure how that qualifies as ironic. Sad, perhaps, and coincidental, possibly. But if one of Future Publishing’s magazines goes under, I don’t expect the ones I write for to stop paying me for my work.

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

And yet the original post by author Monica Gaudio states Griggs did respond, arguing online content is “public domain” and that the original author “should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it!”. Classy stuff.

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 the bit that gets me; the author’s ‘agenda’! What agenda? Her wanting to be compensated for her work being used, without permission, in a publication? Man, that Monica seems like a devious sort! Also, she didn’t ‘inflict’ any harm on others—she requested that she be paid and then posted online when she got a rude response to said request. The author is the original victim here; that Cooks Source has turned into a victim also isn’t down to Monica, but the actions of Cooks Source editor Griggs.

So let me say this now: Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you. I never ment to hurt anyone, and I think I did a nice job for you, but the fact remains that I took this without asking you and that was so very wrong.

And there we have it again: another apology wrapped around an excuse. “I think I did a nice job for you.” If you take something I’ve written, without me giving permission, and then include it in your publication, even if you edit it to perfection, that’s not doing a nice job for me—it’s doing a nice job for you.

This is how it happened […] 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.

And there, in a nutshell, is the crux of the matter. The editor didn’t realise the article in question was “copy written”; but then everything online is under copyright by default, and so unless something specifically says you can use it, you can’t. This is Copyright 101—the absolute basics. This is something Griggs still seemingly fails to grasp. And being tired after working long days is no excuse for stealing someone’s work. Some of my editors work ridiculous hours, and yet they don’t get near to deadline and pilfer articles from websites.

I did keep the author’s name on it rather than outright ‘stealing’ it

No, you outright stole it, but retained the author’s name. There’s a difference.

[…] and it was my intention to contact the author, but I simply forgot, between proofreading, deliveries, exhaustion.

Top tip: contact an author before you decide to use their content.

The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. […] This will end us. […] 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.

She did give you a chance, when she initially contacted you, but you blew it. Subsequently, you had a chance every single day to put things right, but you didn’t. Had you paid and issued a simple, frank apology, you’d have gotten away with it, and I’m sure there wouldn’t be a 200-post thread on Facebook unearthing all the other times your magazine took content without permission.

So, what lessons can we learn from this incident? First, if you screw up, admit it, apologise, make good and move on. Had Griggs not been a smart-arse and just paid for the article her publication ‘stole’, this incident would have gone no further. Secondly, don’t make excuses for wrongdoing. Don’t say you were tired or busy. Just apologise, make good and move on. And thirdly, don’t take what you don’t have the right to take. Online content is not in the public domain—it is owned by its creators, unless otherwise specified.

Matt Bradley’s great open letter to Judge Jacqueline Davies, who yesterday ensured Paul Chambers’s life would continue to be ruined for no good reason.

Standout part:

Paul Chambers knew his audience, and they knew him. To suggest that he should restrict his language on the basis that somebody else might accidentally see it, is to restrict the communications and language of every free individual in this country, for fear that they might be criminalised by the state. On a day when we wore poppies to remember those who fought and died, and continue to fight and die to protect our basic freedom, the court’s judgement made a mockery of their efforts.

Website road.cc reports:

A Queen’s Counsel who is also a keen cyclist is fighting a frustrating battle to have the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Metropolitan Police take action against a driver who threatened to kill him, despite having video footage of the incident.

The CPS says “there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction”. This is the same CPS who are fucking up the life of Paul Chambers for making a joke on Twitter (Telegraph) and that may take action against a Conservative councillor (Guardian) for a more ill-advised ‘joke’ on Twitter, where he suggested a columnist should be stoned to death.

As Adam Banks wryly noted on Twitter, the first of these things is menacing, but the CPS seemingly doesn’t care, because it’s not on Twitter. (Given his Twitter-based criticism of the CPS, I wish Adam well after he’s arrested and thrown into a dungeon.) Still, with IamSpartacus rapidly trending alongside messages (i.e. CLEAR AND OBVIOUS JOKES) regarding bombings and destruction, the CPS will soon have its work cut out. Precedent suggests it will have to arrest everyone making such tweets, unless it finally admits Chambers (and even Tory boy Gareth Compton) ultimately didn’t do anything untoward.

So there we have it: the CPS are a bunch of fucking idiots, out-of-touch judges don’t seem to understand that people can tell jokes on the internet, and 27-year-old Paul Chambers is fucked. As various sources report, Judge Jacqueline Davies bafflingly claimed:

The words in the message speak for themselves and they were sent at a time when the security threat to this country was substantial

The original tweet she’s referring to, which has subsequently cost Chambers his job and got him a conviction and hefty (now heftier) fine:

Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!

Only a complete fucking idiot would have taken that seriously in context, and I reckon Heresy Corner is right in saying Chambers has essentially been prosecuted for having an English sense of humour. The ruling itself is depressing and worrying in equal measure. Anyone who doesn’t think this verdict has far-reaching consequences in a country whose laws are based on precedent is deluded. This might not be so much mere CPS incompetence as drawing a line and saying—in the UK at least—you can NOT say these kinds of things online.

Until such time that sanity prevails, you can donate to the Paul Chambers fund. Here’s hoping he has more luck if he takes the case to the European courts.

In the UK, student fees are about to shoot up, making it significantly harder for anyone to go to university unless they have rich parents. Yesterday, coachloads of students went to London to march and protest, in what, according to those who was there, was a largely peaceful affair, punctuated with the odd bit of stupidity and violence.

At the time, people wondered why all of the news outlets were focussing on the violence rather than, say, the issues, or the fact the vast majority of students were peacefully protesting. (Anyone remember that great photo from, I think, a G20 protest, where a guy about to chuck something through a window is surrounded by dozens of photo-journalists? Ah, here we go—one of many) Today, though, all becomes clear, as the BBC reports Prime Tory David Cameron has used the violence to cunningly distract from the reasons behind the protests.

I think we’ve also got to ask ourselves some questions. This level of violence was largely unexpected and what lessons can we learn for the future.

I imagine that could go one of two ways. It either gives the Tories and their Lib-Dem chums a chance to clamp down on protests, under the guise of public order and safety, or the lesson could be to essentially ensure some unrest in future protests. After all, that is all any news outlets are talking about this morning, rather than tuition fees rising to ‘up to’ £9,000 per year.