Cooks Source Controversy Highlights A Different Double-Standard

So here's something I've been wondering: Recently Cooks Source magazine lifted a blogger's article and republished it as their own. When she realised it and confronted them, the magazine responded saying that "the internet is public domain" - and copyright infringement can't therefore be cited.

Of course, the Interwebs went crazy and "the Internet is public domain" quickly became a meme.

And it got me thinking: if we write something, take a picture of something, create something and share it online, we expect to own it. It's ours. We take it personally if someone co-opts it as their own. And so we should.

So why do those same Interweb users then not think twice about torrenting a song? a movie? Didn't someone else spend time making those? Isn't that their creative output? What makes that ok?

Why the double-standard?

[Technorati Tags: , , , ]

Popular posts from this blog

Designing the team experience: Building culture through onboarding (Slides from PPPConf, Chicago 2018)

UX Theatre: Are You Just Acting Like You're Doing User-Centered Design?

UX Theatre: The Poster