The
article is about a magazine, Cooks Source, who reprinted an author's recipe
without her permission.
According
to Law professor Eric E. Johnson the Internet is not "public
domain" and Cook's should have not ripped off what Ms. Gaudio wrote
without her permission.
I
think the editor of the magazine would be wise to have someone proofread her
writing since her tired eyes are not able to do it for her.
According
to Johnson, Cook's magazine was neither morally nor legally correct.
Legal has to do with what you are able to do according to the letter of
the law.
Moral
has to do with whether not one should do something even if there is a loophole
that allows you to skirt or work around the legal system. It also can
center on your personal moral values. One person's interpretation of what
is morally correct has much more wiggle room than the legal interpretation
might have.
As
far as an example, even though the law allows me to do something, I always
first consider whether or not I would be OK with someone from the local
newspaper or TV station reporting on my action to the public. If I would
not be proud of the story even though what I did was legal then I may want to consider
that it may not have been morally correct.
After reading many of the comments people made I feel like I need to comment on my own post. I stated above that according to Mr. Johnson the Internet is not public domain when in fact I did nothing to verify Mr. Johnson's comments. I am just taking it at face value.
ReplyDeleteSo, I have just broken one of the rules I throughout to my students which is "just because you read it on the internet does not necessarily is fact.
Oops!