Interesting! In short, the article is discussing the rights of bloggers in regards to their writings being used by another entity without recognition. And what rights does the blogger have in this regard.
The magazine did not have the right to publish the article because the magazine misinterpreted the meaning of "Public Domain", (And responded to the accusation in a rather condescending manner.)
The question of morality becomes a sticking point for me. Was the mistake honest or not? If it was an honest mistake then the morality is in less doubt. If we consider the idea of a legitimate mistake then morality is in doubt, but this same ignorance does not excuse the illegality of the the action. Much like protesting a traffic ticket when the driver is not aware of the applicable law.
What I wonder if is the magazine was in fact correct in so far as the blog was not copyrighted and so Public Domain, at least for the moment.
ReplyDeleteIt raises an interesting question for me. We have laws that apply to all of us. From one person to another all of the laws are the same. In terms of morals, though, they differ from one person to the next. Would there be a benefit of there being a "moral standard" that applied to all of us?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting that we have a tendency to determine whether someone's actions were morally correct is based on what our moral views are.
ReplyDeleteThe old saying "You don't know what you don't know" comes to mind. I wish I could give credit to the person who came up with that quote but I haven't a clue. Please do not come after me whoever you are.