Issue one of Future Publishing’s new iOS magazine, Tap!, is out today in the UK.

Editor Christopher Phin was kind enough to let me run riot on the gaming section, and so there’s a 17-page chunk of irreverent, fun, iOS gaming goodness in the mag.

In addition, there’s plenty to get your teeth into: loads of app, web-app and kit reviews, tutorials, interviews, opinion pieces and features. The entire thing looks great, is handily iPad-sized, and is packed full of fun, passionate copy.

If you’re not in the UK, the mag will soon be on Zinio and also US shelves. For more on when and where, follow @tapmaguk on Twitter.

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.

I’m not sure when ease of availability started being equated with ‘free’. However, we increasingly seem to be living in a world where no-one seems to grasp the basic fundamentals of copyright. I can cut individuals who very rarely deal with media a little slack, but (supposedly) professional publications are frequently stealing images and written content; worse, some then argue that it’s the fault of the creators for putting said content into the ‘public domain’ (i.e. online), despite the fact that the act of putting something online absolutely does not mean you no longer consider the material your copyright.

A stark example is found in the article Copyright Infringement and Me (hat tip: Adam Banks). An author is asked by a friend how one of their articles was published; the problem is the author has never heard of the magazine in question. After some investigative work, they contact the magazine’s editor and ask for an online and printed apology, along with remuneration in the form of a $130 donation (a very reasonable 10 cents per word) to the Columbia School of Journalism.

The response is both shocking and laughable (visit the original article to read it in full), with the editor—supposedly with three decades of experience—arguing as follows:

[…] 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!

[…] the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally.

[…] We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!

No, you’re reading that right. Since someone had the audacity to put an article online, it should be considered freely available for all magazine editors to steal. The author should consider themselves lucky, apparently, that the editor didn’t remove the author’s name from the copy and also charge them for an edit that they neither requested nor authorised. Classy.

So, well done, Cooks Source magazine, in attempting to overhaul copyright laws. I look forward to your future issues in which you try to charge Gordon Ramsay for rewriting some of his content and then attributing it to Brian Ovenmitts, shortly before you’re sued into oblivion.

Update: Looks like this is more a case of ‘busted’ than unearthing a one-off error. In the comments, Eric Meyer notes that Cooks Source has reprinted material from several sources, including Sunset, the Food Network, and WebMD, the last of those with a different byline. (All links from Meyer’s Twitter feed.)

Update 2: Meyer adds that a discussion thread on Cooks Source’s own Facebook page is compiling many more infringements.

Retro Gamer won a GMA last night (‘Best Games Magazine’), which is rather nice. Since it’s the only games magazine I write for, I’m going to take all the credit.

Meanwhile, if you’re a fan of Infocom, Steve Meretzky, leather goddesses, Phobos, or Leather Goddesses of Phobos, buying the latest issue of the mag (complete with flying Mario advent calendar cover—I kid you not) would be a good idea, since it includes The Making of… Leather Goddesses of Phobos (by yours truly).

Typos are an inevitable part of writing, but some (and the subsequent corrections) are better than others. This one, via Popbitch, is the best I’ve seen in a long while:

This blog post originally stated that one in three black men who have sex with me is HIV positive. In fact, the statistic applies to black men who have sex with men.