Neowin.net

Let those Diggers know what they helped achieve: http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Kotaku_Pay..._to_Neowin_Digg

And let us be informed that a bunch of crack sniffing monkeys post on that site.

Of course they dealt with it. Only after they saw the attention it was getting; it was making them look bad.

would of been funny seeing what they said if this story wasnt all over the place

maybe $10 a pic ?

I was thinking more like $0.

Finding a picture, cropping it, and then posting it on your site is not accidental. Especially not when it happens twice.

someone at Kotaku is getting $200 less on their paycheck

Had, not has. Taking pictures that don't belong to them, cropping them and then using them without paying to do so is wrong and flies in the face of copyright law - I'm no expert but even I know that is completely wrong. It is absolutely not "accidental" and the $200 for rights to use the pictures is a welcome move to correct the situation... I'd have said it was on the low side considering the network they belong to makes serious money but still better than nothing.

I'm glad the issue has been resolved but I have little respect for the site anymore because they behaved in such an unprofessional and immoral way.

probably a lot less than 200, after he paid his lawyer

My sentiments exactly, "bad publicity is good publicity." They got the bad publicity from all the news stories floating around the net, so they had to make up for it, so they did something good and in turn is gonna get good publicity and possibly more people coming to there site cause i for one had no idea about the site kotaku but after doing research looks like there owned by Gawker Media which also owns the sister sites Gizmodo and Lifehacker which are much more well known to the public...i found this interesting when i read it on the wikipedia article below

Quote -

...

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotaku

Kotaku.com is a blog which focuses on video games. Kotaku is part of Gawker Media’s 'Glocker' network of sites, which also includes Gizmodo, Lifehacker.com and Consumerist. The website is often seen as an alternative for news and reviews to bigger, higher-profile sites such as IGN or GameSpot - it is seen as having a more friendly, casual, entertaining style and a less corporate attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media

Gawker Media is an online media company founded and owned by Nick Denton. It is considered to be one of the most visible and successful blog-oriented media companies. As of May 2007, it is the parent company for 15 different weblogs, including Gawker.com, Defamer, Fleshbot, Deadspin, Wonkette, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Consumerist and Kotaku.

While Denton does not go into detail over Gawker Media's finances, he has downplayed the profit potential of blogs, declaring "Blogs are likely to be better for readers than for capitalists. While I love the medium, I've always been skeptical about the value of blogs as businesses" on his personal site. However, in the February 20, 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Jossip founder David Hauslaib estimated Gawker.com's annual advertising revenue to be at least $1 million two years ago, and possibly over $2 million a year. Combined with low operating costs — mostly web hosting fees and writer salaries — Denton is believed to be turning a healthy profit.

Last edited by ibetheone on 14 Dec 2007 - 07:59

Im still saying that Kotaku did something wrong but he should know that anything posted on internet can be copied so....

And anything put onto CD or DVD can be copied, as can books, patented ideas and musical scores. At the end of the day if a company hasn't paid for the right to use something, and if a right to use it is not enshrined in law, then it is wrong - fair usage obviously does not cover copying someone's work and allowing them to profit from it.

Profit? Kotaku didnt gain any profit from this. They just posted in on a review.


By that logic, then the prince17 guy also is wrong when he downloads music something he problably does.

Punctuation please ?

So they should be free then? What about all the terrible movies that have been released on DVD: should they be cheaper because you don't approve?

Considering the network they belong to makes serious money and that they had previously used them without permission I think $200 is definitely on the low side, though I don't know what would be an appropriate amount - $2000 seems a bit steep.