If you haven’t, then let me elaborate just a little bit.

So it turns out that there’s this magazine called “Cooks Source” who claims to have somewhere between 17,000 and 28,000 readers, publishing in both print and online. In their recent “Pumpkin fest” issue, their staff went ahead and copied an article on medieval apple pies from godecookery.com, a website of interest to medieval (food) enthusiasts. This was done without knowledge or permission of the author, one Monica Gaudio, who posts as illadore on the website Livejournal.com.

When a friend of Monica’s discovered this, she contacted the magazine hoping for an explanation. Thus began an exchange with the publication’s managing editor, Judith Griggs, who finally asked what Monica wanted, anyway. Since she was asked, Monica requested to be paid for her work – at the rate of about ten cents a word, and have it donated to the Columbia School of Journalism, and a printed apology in the magazine.

In response, Ms. Griggs replied that she had been editing magazines for thirty years, and that she knows about copyright laws. She continued onward:

“…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! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, 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, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

It’s worth a giggle, to consider this response. Anybody who’s aware of anything with regard to publishing or copyright knows that no, the Internet is not in fact public domain. It is absolutely copyright infringement to take somebody’s material and just slap it up there without permission. Does it happen? Absolutely – and the penalty for that on college campuses and the workplace is strict. Automatic course failure in academia, if not immediate dismissal altogether in both avenues.

Also, “as a professional” Ms. Griggs should know that the article she lifted was illustrating medieval cooking, and demonstrated everything from its sourcing including the antiquated old English spellings. Fortunately for everybody else, you don’t need to be a professional to realize this, all you have to do is just read the article.

Since word on this has gotten out, Cooks Source has been getting absolutely slammed, both on their website – which is buckling under the strain of traffic – and their Facebook page, which is getting a deluge of folks signing up to leave nasty commentary and then signing back off so as to not inflate the number of “Likes” that Cooks Source has. It’s also attracted the attention of the websites Reddit and 4chan, and even author Neil Gaiman and NBC show creator Dan Harmon have been discussing it via Twitter. More than this, Internet users have begun to dig up other instances of alleged plagiarism by Cooks Source, from such sources as NPR, Martha Stewart Living, the Food Network and even Weight Watchers, among several others, which if proven true might bring about bites from bigger jaws than Monica and the Internet might bring to bear.

It’s staggeringly bad judgement on the part of Ms. Griggs, and her barely-there grasp of copyright law will land her in some serious hot water – perhaps forming a base for a batch of foot-in-mouth soup, if you will.

The lesson from this is pretty clear, but more than just “don’t steal,” it’s worth admonishing all writers out there to be vigilant. Protect your work. You never know who’s reading, or who’s writing a fly-by-night ripoff rag.

And now here they are, posting illegally-obtained emails from Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s personal email accounts. Private family photos. Personal email contact lists, including her husband, and other family friends. Phone numbers of her children. (who all but one are minors, by the way)

The accounts have since been taken down, and while Imageshack and 4chan – where the group who claims responsibility was formed – had them for awhile, those have since been removed as well. But Gawker, knowing that this information was obtained illegally, and knowing that this information serves zero purpose in exposing any alleged use of personal email for state business. They’ve gone ahead and posted this stuff for the sole purpose of being spiteful and hurtful, because their authors’ and/or editors’ politics don’t mesh with hers. Gawker, which has spent so long masquerading as a legitimate media group has shown itself for what it really is, little more than a garbage tabloid. Except I don’t think even the National Inquirer would run this story.

As far as I’m concerned, this is beyond low.

I may display a little partisan bias here, in noting that you never see this kind of behavior displayed on behalf of the Republican party. You never see costumed idiots rushing the stage at the Democratic speeches and conventions. You never hear about the families of Democratic officials being dragged out into the public eye, the way Governor Palin’s has this last month. (And let’s leave the Kennedys out of this, most of them are officials themselves, and Billy Carter reveled in his own infamy, as did Roger Clinton.)

But I will promise you this, reader: Had it been Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi I’d be equally angry.

I am angry because this is not the political process. It is not even the process of justice, if one believes there is justice that needs to be served to this woman. It is simply the result of blind fanaticism, taken to a foolish and idiotic extreme, all in the name of readership numbers.

I am angry at the hypocrisy in the Internet ‘elite’, who clamor for privacy in all things only to lash out and violate someone else’s.

And I am angry at Gawker, for stooping to this level. While some will say that “they’re only a bunch of blogs,” I think it is reasonable to say that blogs have long become mainstream enough media that as long as they are breaking original stories, they should be beholden to the same rules of journalistic integrity as any other media employee.

This won’t blow over anytime soon, as far as I’m concerned. I hope other people will see this issue for what it is as I do. I hope people stop patronizing their sites and providing them ad revenue. I hope people stop providing them with readers to justify their banner pricing. Their behavior is no way to run a media organization.

I would just as soon get my news coverage from Perez Hilton. At least with that dude you know what you’re getting into.