3 ms·
> Maybe "she" deserves a serious wake-up call, but "they" most certainly do not. Being a two-person operation is probably why they ripped off most if not all o
by cs_1 16y ago
> Maybe "she" deserves a serious wake-up call, but "they" most certainly do not.
Being a two-person operation is probably why they ripped off most if not all of their content.
"Craftier Internet denizens started to research more of Cooks Source's publications, discovering that other articles could be lifted from The Food Network, Martha Stewart, NPR and even Disney."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299928 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299928
Not just articles, but also photos, discovered with TinEye.
- studer 16y ago"Because the writer in question had a copyright on her website where the article can be found, the content of the website is under copyright law." Ouch. Surely there must be a better source than some junk written by a clueless "digital journalist" with the sole purpose of flooding search engines?
- cs_1 16y agoWade through at your leisure. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic=23238 http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=196994196748&topic... Same primary source regardless of what outlet covers it. NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/11/05/131091599/the-day-the-internet-threw-a-righteous-hissyfit-about-copyright-and-pie http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/11/05/131091599/the-... Economist: "A host of Facebook and other denizens have traced over 100 other articles that have appeared in the magazine to The Food Network, NPR, Martha Stewart, Sunset, and others. A Google Docs spreadsheet maintains the list." http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/11/internet_shaming http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/11/internet_sham... The list: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmTaIPHPnkSedGFhbHo1d1FIR2oxNWJLaDZLeXhEVEE&hl=en#gid=0 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmTaIPHPnkSedGFhbHo... Over 160 entries just from recent issues that people could find copies of.