I imagine there are people who did one or the other of those things. But not many. The contrast says something about how we collectively view intellectual property, and it may not be something we want to face.

IHMO there is a very clear difference between sharing a song or two with a friend to get them into your favourite bend, and taking an article to make a profit. ok, sharing 200 songs with a bunch of strangers on p2p (still for free) is a little less clear, but still very far from profiting on other people’s work.

it’s not a legal difference, but a moral one. but law also recognizes this difference, it just places the line of “fair use” a little further than the average netizen (playing a cd to your friends for a party is fair use, selling tickets to said party is copyright infringement — clear distinction on profit).

also, most of us have done the first thing (and sometimes it led to buying the album/movie/ticket), but most of us didn’t try to sell the pirated copy on the street. as an intellectual property creator (coder/writer), i am willing to face that collective view (also, see the whole FOSS/CC/wiki movements)..

There are two issues that will decide the outcome, whether Cooks Source is sued by those who have had articles used without permission and whether advertisers will still pay for publicity in this magazine. The current advertisers have been bombarded with contacts and several have explicitly said they will have nothing more to do with Cooks Source. If this is true then that’s the end of the line for the magazine.

I am troubled though by the scale of the shaming and the level of vitriol this issue has inspired. Of course, Cooks Source shouldn’t steal content to save a few bucks, but is this the worst thing that any of us will hear about this week? Probably not but it’s the one that mobilised thousands of people. I’m not sure what that says about the current culture online.

The collective that gathered around this issue is powerful, but is this the best use we can find for this power? I hope not, but I also hope that all those who have had content used without permission get redress.

Cooks Source “stole” that woman’s article and then profited from it without giving her a share of what they made. Completely different.

Because news media and “reality television” have reinforced that music artists, especially ones as successful as Simmons, are immensely wealthy because of “lucrative record deals” or residuals, and because artists are oftentimes behind the wall of RIAA, a consumer-hostile entity, the consumer of music thinks himself to be the little guy. Obviously, Simmons’s bullheaded tone doesn’t do himself any favors, but I think critics were already predisposed to dismiss any such statement as just some rich musician issuing decrees from an ivory tower. Music consumers are already defensive about record companies and artists hurling missives toward them.

In the case of Cooks Source, the little guy is an average blogger/writter who does freelance work to make ends meet. Empathizing with her is easy as many might relate to the experience of doing hard work and find someone has stolen it for their own gains. Some actively on the internet dream of going freeland, and the thought of plagiarism happening is disgusting.

You’ll note that nowhere in my previous comment did I excuse ANYBODY’s bad behavior.

So, for the final score:

Cooks Source: Loss. Self-entitled, ham-fisted, and wrong.

Gene Simmons: Loss. Self-entitled, ham-fisted, and right (after a fashion). Cf. the story of the invention of the Infinite Improbability Drive.

Haters: Loss. Get a life.

Ben: I agree that both Gene Simmons and Cooks Source came across as self-entitled and ham-fisted. Is that what it takes for them to be wrong? But, as I said to Brennan, the existence of profit doesn’t strike me as a useful way to decide if someone’s in the right or wrong. If I punch you in the face, it’s assault (and wrong) regardless of whether or not someone paid me to do it.

Your Twitter stream was where I first encountered the story, and initially I joined in the fun… oops, I mean the censuring of unethical behavior!

However, things quickly got ugly. In addition to your valid concerns (especially #1), I have a further concern: collateral damage.

While in the first few hours, the online “lynch mob” was dominated by well-intentioned, reasonable, and presumably intelligent people (to the extent that lynch mobs can be reasonable), it quickly devolved into something far worse: the online equivalent of all-out riot.

Caught up in this were the presumably innocent advertisers. These micro-businesses are apparently still being inundated with phone calls and emails from lunatic activists and zealots seeking to punish anyone and everyone associated with CS. One zealot brags on Facebook about having overwhelmed an advertiser’s email. This is horrifying.

From my safe distance, this has been fascinating. And as you say, it is truly awesome. But I can’t help but spare a thought for the innocent people caught in the crossfire. I really hope this all ends well!

CS used someone’s content to make money without their consent, and dimly claimed they had a categorical right to do so when they got busted.

GS came across as a self-entitled, hamfisted apologist for the RIAA’s revenue model, one presumes because he’s [a] from an era where that was the best they could do by way of making healthy profits and [b] is one of the lucky few who’s been turned into a zillionaire thereby.

…So no, not shocked at all by the cognitive dissonance. In both cases people are furious at the sense of self-entitlement these people project, in many cases perhaps because it threatens their own.

Totally agree with your final thoughts here, especially #1. While this was unfolding I found myself thrilled at what felt like the appropriate community response, while simultaneously wondering how this would all get recalled if it turned out some info was wrong. The amalgamated power of the WWW is truly awesome, just exactly as you described. Let’s hope that can find ways to exercise this power with discretion. Thanks for writing this up!

There *is* a lot to think about when events like this occur. Social media is a double-edged sword. Where are the seemingly-arbitrary lines of the perception of content ownership and copyright drawn? What does this mean going forward? I have no idea, maybe this is just a sign that we’re getting closer to a unified consciousness. Or that – as it has always been – people like to project their frustrations on to an easy target… and everyone likes a good beat-down.