Oh, what a tangled Web

Hell hath no fury like a blogosphere scorned, especially when some first practice to deceive, as Shakespeare might say.

This week, no one knew that better than Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs, following accusations that the U.S. magazine had plagiarized a blogger's article. Rather than issue a sheepish apology, Griggs instead told the blogger that the Internet was considered "public domain" and her original post had to be edited so much that Griggs should be paid for making it "much better now than was originally".

Her remarks promptly triggered an onslaught of name-calling and insults from the online community, forcing the editor to publish a formal apology.

I asked ZDNet Asia Tech Legal blogger, Bryan Tan, whether Griggs' defense that the Web was "public domain" would hold up and he replied it would be wrong to say that it was. "Public domain is where something [which] copyright has lapsed or is expressly waived, which is not the case," he said.

Bryan added that online blogs have copyright, too, and cannot be copied. Also, while content on such sites can be used under "fair use" circumstances, such use will depend on various factors such as how much is reused, whether it includes attribution and the purpose of the copyright.

If she decides to take the matter to court, she will likely face the challenge of arguing against the magazine's "fair use" in reusing her article. According to U.S. copyright attorney Alex Chachkes, fair use is a "complicated analysis". But, whether the case makes it to the federal court, he noted that the online attack of Cooks Source and Griggs would likely be more damaging.

Indeed, in her formal apology, Griggs also rebuked the people who "harassed" the magazine and its advertisers via Facebook and other online forums.

Who needs a judiciary system when you have the Internet to help carry out a judgment for you? No doubt, the extent some online users go with their "feedback" can sometimes be a pretty harrowing experience for the receiver.

It prompted a writer at tech blog Gizmodo to post an entry and give a "good lancing" to the "half-witted thinkers" who leave abusive comments on the site. Joel Johnson wrote: "There's plenty to criticize about this site from institutional issues right down to individual posts, but presenting those critiques like an a**hole and then gasping when we don't listen to them is so, so weak."

I think it's great that Johnson decided to take a stand against unnecessarily abusive feedback, but I'm sure he, too, knows it will do little to discourage more from unfolding either now or in the future.

I've said previously in this blog that some parts of the blogosphere will inevitably be "unkind" and anyone who chooses to be a member of the online community needs to be prepared for nasty feedback along with the good.

A reader, Randki, posted on Johnson's blog: "But now you guys are insulting readers for being readers and caring enough about a subject to post an opinion, good or bad? Journalism has always been like this, and if you can't handle it without crying like a baby, maybe it's time to bow out."

I hardly think Johnson was "crying like a baby" when he wrote his tirade, but Randki isn't wrong to say we can't expect to get only honey and cotton candy when we voluntarily broadcast our opinions, articles, blogs and the likes on the Web. Likewise, Johnson's detractors shouldn't expect any either when he decides to lash back, as he did in this case.

For sure, it isn't pleasant to realize how vicious and brutal some people will allow themselves to become but that's how the world spins, isn't it?

The online population will soon hit 2 billion and there will always be a certain percentage of this community who will remain a**holes, as Johnson so nicely put it.

It's a tangled mesh, where every statement it's allowed to consume is fair game for everyone in it to scrutinize and for some, to bludgeon. And for others, like Griggs, they'll come to realize not every statement can be emulated.