> 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."
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."
"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws."
It's really amazing how utterly contemptible this editor's responses have been.
Rip off everyone else knowingly for months or years, then claim innocence and that it was an isolated mistake. Blame everyone else for your own actions and pretend that your apology was fake because people were mean FIRST, when actually the fake apology came first and THAT is what made them mad. Be offered a chance to make it up, denigrate the offer, then cry and lie later about not getting a chance.
This newest statement is so rife with errors, I gotta say:
"I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing"
I also like how she makes it out to be about one blogger, when it turns out Cooks Source stole articles and photos from sites for The Food Network, Oprah, and Martha Stewart. They would have been sued out of existence anyway.
"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."
Pretending it's about one blogger, when in reality it was the collective actions of thousands of people that the editor pissed off. And pretending that her apology was affected by events that hadn't even happened yet!
"I really wish she had given me a chance to respond to her before blasting me. She really never gave me a chance."
So ripping people off is okay, but pointing this out is "blasting someone". And of course she got the chance to respond, her fake apology was included in the initial post and was what pissed everyone off. "The Web Is Public Domain", the headline that GOT all the attention, is from her response, the one she claims she never got the chance to make.
"But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article..."
Anyone can make a mistake, but the research shows they ripped off most if not all of their material, on a constant basis.
"Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it."
Except that any editor knows that EVERYTHING is automatically copyrighted. Oh yeah, and also they ripped off plenty of stuff from big commercial sites which was obviously copyrighted and said so explicitly.
And then she was informed directly by the author that it was copyrighted, so that there was no confusion, to which the editor responded: "But honestly Monica, 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!" [...] "We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!"
And then...
"To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance."
She DID give the editor a chance. She just asked for a donation to the Columbia School of Journalism amounting to 10 cents per word.
So at the end, when you're finally about to face the music for a MULTITUDE of misdeeds, try to distract and cover for them all by copping to a single incident with a single person and then claim it was an accident.
Nothing is ever your fault!
It's difficult to comprehend this level of depravity.
If I recall correctly—I could be mistaken—some of the parts of the article that were supposedly "...in need of editing..." were the verbatim historical recipes, which used the archaic spellings found in the original documents (e.g. "To make pies of grene apples.") Which would make it even more entertaining, in a schadenfreude-filled sort of way.
I agree with most of your points, but I think calling it "depravity" is unwarranted.
Hanlon's razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
She doesn't understand copyright. That's the beginning and end of the problem.
I think a quote from Zed Shaw's rant on trolls is warranted too:
"I restrict my ranty words to assholes I feel are hurting other people, and I can take it as good as I get it. You got something to say? You think I fucking suck? Rock on, go ahead and say it.
But, you better fucking know your shit, 'cause I sure as hell do."
Monica knew her shit. Judith didn't. The battle was over before it started.
